New Project
Biotech
INBOX
Academia
Added by Zbigniew Leś
Created 2026-04-04
Politechnika Warszawska
Pipeline-driven project view. Click any pipeline stage below to see what data is captured / required at that stage. Tabs unlock progressively as the project advances through six stages: INBOX (quick capture), LONG LIST (evaluation data), IN REVIEW (deep dive + domain-specific analysis + voting), EXTRA MILE (IRL assessment + scoring + VB recommendation), VB PROCESS (term sheet + venture building), and FUNDED (portfolio company).
Inbox
→
Long List
→
In Review
→
Extra Mile
→
VB Process
→
Funded
Added by
Zbigniew Leś
VA
Jan Andrzejczuk
Venture Architect
Venture Architect
Support
Olga Hechłacz
Consultant
Consultant
Michał Łach
Analyst
Analyst
External
Kasia Glanowska
Deadline
2026-05-02
INBOX — Quick Capture. Minimum data to not lose the project. Can come from a quick manual entry, external form submission, or scouting pipeline. Goal: capture it and move on. Domain + Source + Title + Description is enough.
Domain & Source
Required — determines how the project flows through the pipeline.
Domain *
🧬
Biotech
Drug discovery, therapeutics, gene & cell therapy
🩺
Medtech
Medical devices, implants, diagnostics
🚀
Deeptech
Space, materials, energy, quantum, robotics
😢
Shallowtech
Fintech, proptech, edtech, SaaS
Quick Identification
Nowy degrader BTK oparty o technologię PROTAC, opracowany na Wydziale Chemii PW. Wstępne dane in vitro pokazują selektywną degradację BTK z DC50 < 10 nM. Potencjalna przewaga nad inhibitorami BTK (ibrutynib) — omija mechanizmy oporności.
Znalezione przez CTT PW. Zespół prof. Kowalskiej ma silne publikacje w chemii medycznej. Warto sprawdzić landscape — rynek inhibitorów BTK to ~$10B.
Project Team
Key people behind this project — founders, lead scientists, inventors. Can be minimal at inbox, expanded later.
AK
prof. dr hab. Anna Kowalska
Lead Scientist
Wydział Chemii, Politechnika Warszawska
MZ
dr Michał Zieliński
Co-inventor
Postdoc, Chemia Medyczna PW
+ Add team member
At minimum: one lead scientist or founder. Roles, affiliations, and contact details can be added later during review.
Project is in INBOX. Save and evaluate later, or promote to Long List to begin evaluation.
LONG LIST — Evaluation Data. Conscious decision: "this project is worth looking at." Fill in what we know at intake — market context, regulatory landscape, initial TRL. This data supports the decision to promote to PICKED FOR REVIEW.
Core Identification
Nowy degrader BTK oparty o technologię PROTAC, opracowany na Wydziale Chemii PW. Wstępne dane in vitro pokazują selektywną degradację BTK z DC50 < 10 nM. Potencjalna przewaga nad inhibitorami BTK (ibrutynib) — omija mechanizmy oporności.
Classification
Oncology ✕
PROTAC ✕
Targeted Protein Degradation ✕
BTK ✕
Autocomplete from dictionary. Type and select — e.g., "onco" → Oncology.
Quick assessment at intake. Full 6-dimension IRL assessment comes at EXTRA MILE.
Market Context
What we know at intake
Capture what's known about the market opportunity. Can be rough — will be refined during scoring.
Pacjenci z nawrotowymi/opornymi nowotworami z komórek B (CLL, MCL) rozwijają oporność na inhibitory BTK (ibrutynib, zanubrutynib) poprzez mutacje C481S. Brak skutecznych opcji terapeutycznych dla tej populacji — ok. 30% pacjentów rozwija oporność w ciągu 3 lat.
This can be a completely unmet need (no solution exists) or a problem where current solutions are insufficient. Examples:
Biotech: "No effective treatment for drug-resistant pancreatic cancer" (unmet need) or "Current immunotherapies cause severe side effects in 40% of patients" (inadequate solution).
Deeptech: "No commercially viable method to recycle rare earth elements" (unmet need) or "Current carbon capture costs $400/ton — needs to be under $100 to scale" (improvement needed).
The stronger and more specific the problem, the clearer the path to commercialization.
Biotech: "No effective treatment for drug-resistant pancreatic cancer" (unmet need) or "Current immunotherapies cause severe side effects in 40% of patients" (inadequate solution).
Deeptech: "No commercially viable method to recycle rare earth elements" (unmet need) or "Current carbon capture costs $400/ton — needs to be under $100 to scale" (improvement needed).
The stronger and more specific the problem, the clearer the path to commercialization.
Who would pay for this or use it?
Rough global TAM. BTK inhibitor market ~$10B. Precise sizing comes during scoring.
Regulatory Landscape
What approvals or certifications will be needed to commercialize?
New molecular entity, full IND/NDA pathway. Potential orphan drug designation for MCL subset.
FDA + EMA required. PROTAC is a new modality class — limited regulatory precedent (ARV-471 by Arvinas is furthest). Orphan drug designation possible for mantle cell lymphoma subset. Accelerated approval pathway possible if unmet need demonstrated.
External Links & References
Structured links to source materials and databases.
+ Add another link
Internal Assignment
Track who sourced the project. VA and team are assigned at review kick-off.
Zbigniew Leś
Auto-filled · always visible in "My Projects"
Venture Architect & Team
Assigned at review kick-off meeting (bi-weekly)
Project is on LONG LIST. When ready, promote to Picked for Review for the next kick-off meeting.
IN REVIEW — Project Team & Assessment. The people behind the project: scientists, inventors, potential founders. At review, we assess not just the technology but the team — their spin-off readiness, founder potential, and competency coverage. This assessment is done during the kick-off meeting and refined throughout the review.
Project Team
Key scientists, inventors, and potential founders. Expanded from initial intake with roles, availability, and spin-off intent.
AK
prof. dr hab. Anna Kowalska
Lead Scientist
Potential Founder
Wydział Chemii, Politechnika Warszawska · Chemia medyczna, PROTAC design
Spin-off intent:
Interested — CSO role
Interested — CSO role
Availability:
Part-time (sabbatical possible)
Part-time (sabbatical possible)
Biz experience:
ERC grant PI, industry collab with Selvita
ERC grant PI, industry collab with Selvita
MZ
dr Michał Zieliński
Co-inventor
Potential Founder
Postdoc, Chemia Medyczna PW · Synteza organiczna, linker design
Spin-off intent:
Very interested — wants CEO/COO
Very interested — wants CEO/COO
Availability:
Full-time (contract ends 2027)
Full-time (contract ends 2027)
Biz experience:
Pre-accelerator at MIT, LIDER grant PI
Pre-accelerator at MIT, LIDER grant PI
EW
mgr Ewa Wiśniewska
PhD Student
Doktorantka, Chemia Medyczna PW · In vitro assays, cell biology
Spin-off intent:
Not assessed yet
Not assessed yet
Availability:
PhD defense 2027
PhD defense 2027
Biz experience:
None
None
+ Add team member
Team Assessment
Done at kick-off meeting & refined during review
Evaluate the team's readiness to form a spin-off company. This is one of the most important factors in The Heart's decision — technology can be improved, but a weak team is a dealbreaker. Rate each dimension and provide evidence.
Spin-off Intent
Do the key people want to build a company? What motivates them — financial return, impact, independence from university?
Prof. Kowalska: interested in CSO role, wants to stay part-time academic. Dr Zieliński: very motivated, wants full-time CEO/COO role, has entrepreneurial drive. Both discussed spin-off during initial meeting.
Founder Readiness
Is there at least one person with the drive and capability to be CEO? Look for: business acumen, communication skills, industry connections, prior startup experience, leadership ability.
Dr Zieliński is the strongest founder candidate — MIT pre-accelerator experience, LIDER grant PI, articulate about the market opportunity. Needs mentoring on fundraising and team building. No prior founder experience but strong potential.
Competency Coverage
Does the team cover the critical competencies for the spin-off? Map gaps: science, product dev, regulatory, business dev, manufacturing. Which gaps can The Heart fill?
Strong: medicinal chemistry, PROTAC design, in vitro biology. Gaps: regulatory affairs (need CRO or hire), CMC/manufacturing, business development. The Heart can bridge BD and fundraising. Regulatory: need external advisor.
Availability
Can key people commit to the spin-off? University contracts, teaching obligations, competing projects, sabbatical options, family situation. Timeline to availability.
Zieliński: postdoc contract ends 2027, can go full-time. Kowalska: tenured, can do sabbatical for 1 year, then part-time advisory. Wiśniewska: PhD until 2027, secondary role. Key risk: if Zieliński gets another offer before spin-off is formed.
Key Person Risk
What happens if the lead scientist or key inventor leaves? Is critical knowledge documented? Are there backup people who understand the technology?
High dependency on Kowalska for PROTAC design know-how and Zieliński for linker chemistry. Wiśniewska knows the assay protocols but can't lead synthesis. If Kowalska disengages, project loses scientific credibility. Mitigation: document synthesis protocols early, build relationship with Kowalska as scientific advisor.
Team Dynamics
How do team members work together? Is there a clear leader? Are roles and equity expectations aligned? Any conflict signals (competing labs, prior disputes, IP disagreements)?
Kowalska and Zieliński have published 8 papers together — strong working relationship. Clear hierarchy (Kowalska = scientific lead, Zieliński = execution). No equity discussion yet — this should happen early. Risk: Kowalska may expect larger equity share as professor/PI.
Team Assessment Summary
4/6 assessed
IN REVIEW — IP & Know-How. Deep-dive done by the assigned VA and team. Requires meetings with the research team, patent analysis, and consultation. IRL Assessment and Scoring are done later at EXTRA MILE — after all review data is collected.
Core Know-How
What is the fundamental innovation? What would a competitor need to replicate?
IP Protection
Feeds into IPRRL assessment at Extra Mile stage.
Freedom to Operate (FTO)
Critical for commercialization
Can this technology be commercialized without infringing others' IP? Data here feeds the IPRRL dimension at Extra Mile.
Arvinas has broad PROTAC patents but specific warhead + linker chemistry appears novel. Patpol analysis in progress, expected 2026-05-15.
IP Transfer Path
Critical for university projects
Can this IP be transferred from the university to a spin-off company? This is often the biggest bottleneck for academic projects. Assess clarity of the transfer path, university TTO cooperation, co-ownership issues, and existing licenses.
How will the IP move from university to spin-off? Most common: exclusive license with equity + milestone payments.
CTT/TTO at Politechnika Warszawska. Quality of relationship directly impacts timeline.
If IP is shared between institutions, all co-owners must agree to the transfer. This can significantly delay the process.
CTT PW is familiar with spin-off process (they've done 5+ in last 3 years). Standard path: exclusive license + equity stake (typically 5-10% for PW). Key risk: if LIDER grant is awarded, NCBR may impose commercialization requirements that conflict with The Heart's preferred structure. Need to check NCBR grant terms before spin-off formation.
IN REVIEW — Defensibility & Moat Assessment. Based on Hamilton Helmer's 7 Powers framework, adapted for deep-tech and science-based ventures. This assessment is broader than IP alone — it evaluates all sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Each power is assessed with evidence and rated for strength.
7 Powers Assessment
Rate each competitive power 0-3. Not all powers apply to every project — skip those that don't. The strongest moats combine multiple powers. For science-based ventures, Scale Economies and Switching Costs often emerge post-launch.
1. Counter-Positioning
A newcomer adopts a superior business model that incumbents can't copy without damaging their existing business.
Strength:
How to assess: Can incumbent pharma companies (AbbVie with ibrutinib) adopt PROTAC technology without cannibalizing their $9B BTK inhibitor revenue?
Moderate. AbbVie/BeiGene have $10B+ in BTK inhibitor revenue — switching to PROTACs would cannibalize their own products. However, Nurix and C4 Therapeutics are pure-play PROTAC companies without this dilemma. Counter-positioning works vs big pharma, not vs biotech competitors.
2. Cornered Resource
Preferential access to a coveted resource — IP, unique data, key talent, regulatory status — that others can't easily replicate.
Strength:
How to assess: Does the team have exclusive access to IP, unique compounds, proprietary data, or regulatory designations that competitors can't obtain?
Strong. Novel warhead + linker chemistry is patented (PL441234). Proprietary structure-activity data from 200+ synthesized compounds (not published). Team know-how on CRBN-based degrader design is unique. Potential orphan drug designation would add regulatory exclusivity.
3. Scale Economies
Cost advantages that increase with scale — manufacturing, distribution, R&D amortization.
Strength:
How to assess: Will being bigger make the product cheaper or better? For early-stage biotech, this power typically emerges post-approval (manufacturing scale, sales force leverage).
Not applicable at this stage. May emerge post-approval if platform technology enables multiple degrader programs from same chemical scaffold.
4. Network Economies
Product value increases with the number of users. Rare in biotech, more relevant for platform/data plays.
Strength:
N/A for single-drug biotech project.
5. Switching Costs
Users face costs (financial, procedural, relational) to switch to a competitor's product.
Strength:
How to assess: Once a hospital adopts this drug, how hard is it to switch? Consider treatment protocols, physician familiarity, combination therapy dependencies.
Weak at molecule level — doctors can switch drugs. However, if adopted as part of combination protocol, switching becomes harder.
6. Branding
Durable attribution of higher value to a product due to reputation, trust, or identity.
Strength:
Not applicable at this stage for a pre-clinical biotech asset.
7. Process Power
Embedded organizational capabilities — know-how, processes, culture — that enable lower costs or superior product, built over time and hard to replicate.
Strength:
How to assess: Does the team have embedded know-how about PROTAC design that goes beyond what's published? Proprietary processes, synthesis shortcuts, design rules?
Moderate. The team has 5+ years of unpublished structure-activity data on CRBN-recruiting PROTACs. Proprietary linker design rules developed through 200+ compound iterations. This know-how is hard to replicate even with the patent — it's in the team's heads and lab notebooks.
Moat Strength Summary
4/7 powers assessed
·
Average: 2.0 / 3
Cornered Resource: 3
Counter-Positioning: 2
Process Power: 2
Switching Costs: 1
Moderate moat. Primary defense: cornered resource (patented chemistry + proprietary data) + process power (embedded PROTAC design know-how). The counter-positioning advantage vs big pharma is real but doesn't protect against pure-play PROTAC biotechs. Key action: file PCT within 6 months and protect the unpublished SAR data rigorously.
IN REVIEW — Technology. Universal tab — content adapts to the project's domain. For Biotech: Drug Discovery it shows the target profile, therapeutic classification, and mechanism of action. For Deeptech — core technology specs. For Medtech — device classification.
This tab is AI auto-assessed via Claude Cowork + The Heart's custom connector. The VA reviews and adjusts the AI output.
Field Type Legend: text short input enum dropdown select multi_enum tag picker markdown rich editor id_ref auto-linked ID
This tab is AI auto-assessed via Claude Cowork + The Heart's custom connector. The VA reviews and adjusts the AI output.
Field Type Legend: text short input enum dropdown select multi_enum tag picker markdown rich editor id_ref auto-linked ID
🤖 AI Enrichment
Claude Cowork + Heart connector will analyze the project, enrich all fields below using PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ChEMBL, Ensembl, and OpenTargets data, and generate a full enrichment report document.
Last run: 2026-05-01 by Jan Andrzejczuk
Target Profile
Auto-enriched from Ensembl + ChEMBL + OpenTargets
High confidence · 5 sources
Populated automatically when Ensembl/ChEMBL IDs are provided. Read-only — shows enriched target data.
Gene
EnsemblBTK
Bruton tyrosine kinase
Xq22.1 · Cytoplasm, Nucleus
Function
UniProtNon-receptor tyrosine kinase essential for B-cell development, differentiation, and signaling. Key role in BCR signaling pathway.
Tractability
OpenTargets
Small molecule ✓
Antibody ✓
PROTAC ✓
Clinical precedence ✓
Known Drugs (6)
ChEMBL + DailyMedIbrutinib
Inhibitor · Approved
Inhibitor · Approved
Zanubrutinib
Inhibitor · Approved
Inhibitor · Approved
Acalabrutinib
Inhibitor · Approved
Inhibitor · Approved
Pirtobrutinib
Non-covalent · Approved
Non-covalent · Approved
NX-5948
PROTAC · Phase I
PROTAC · Phase I
BGB-16673
CDAC · Phase I
CDAC · Phase I
Safety Liabilities
Literature inference⚠Bleeding risk (platelet aggregation via GPIIb/IIIa) — class effect of BTK inhibition
⚠Cardiac arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation) — observed with ibrutinib, less with selective agents
VA Note
AI target profile looks solid — confirmed with prof. Kowalska that CRBN recruiter is the key differentiator. Safety liabilities are class-level, not compound-specific. Need to verify once in vivo tox data is available (Q3 2026).
Jan Andrzejczuk · 2026-05-02
External Database IDs
Therapeutic Classification
What disease area and indication does this project target?
Specific disease or condition
Oncology
Hematology
B-cell malignancies
+ add tag
Target & Mechanism of Action
High · 4 sources
PROTAC
Targeted Protein Degradation
Bifunctional
+ add tag
🤖 AI-Assessed Evidence Cards
Generated from PubMed + ClinicalTrials.gov + ChEMBL
MoA Status
Confirmed
Validated
PROTAC-mediated BTK degradation via CRBN E3 ligase recruitment. Ubiquitin-proteasome pathway confirmed in 2 cell lines.
C481-independent
Catalytic
Evidence: J. Med. Chem. 2025 (PMID 38XXXXXX)
Preclinical Data
Partial
In Vitro85%
In Vivo30%
PK/PD40%
DC50 < 10 nM (MOLM-14, Ramos). Xenograft ongoing. Oral F > 30% (rat).
Tox & Safety
Inference only
⚠ Bleeding risk — BTK class effect (GPIIb/IIIa)
⚠ Atrial fibrillation — ibrutinib-associated, less with selective
○ No compound-specific tox data yet
Source: class-level inference from approved BTK inhibitor labels. No direct tox studies available.
VA Note
MoA confirmed with the team — CRBN recruiter is novel linker chemistry, not VHL-based like Arvinas. Preclinical data gap: in vivo xenograft results expected Q3 2026. Need to check tox profile once compound-specific data available — class effects may not apply to degraders vs inhibitors.
Jan Andrzejczuk · 2026-05-03
Full MoA write-up. The structured cards above provide the quick assessment; this field has the detailed analysis.
IN REVIEW — Development Phase. Where is this project in its development lifecycle? For biotech: Discovery → Preclinical → Phase I–III → Approved. For deeptech: Concept → Prototype → Pilot → Scale-up. AI-enriched from ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed.
Development Phase
Discovery
Preclinical
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Approved
Key data supporting phase classification. Include PMIDs, NCT IDs, key results.
VA Note
AI-assessed phase may change after xenograft data
IN REVIEW — Competitive Positioning. How does this project compare to existing solutions and competitors? AI-enriched from ClinicalTrials.gov, patent databases, and market reports.
Competitive Positioning
First-in-class = new mechanism. Best-in-class = improved over existing.
Full competitive analysis. Use markdown headers, bold for program names, links to ClinicalTrials.gov / PubMed.
VA Note
AI landscape verified against ClinicalTrials.gov
Landscape is comprehensive — confirmed with KOL interview (Prof. Morrison). One thing to watch: BeiGene's BGB-16673 Phase I data expected Q2 2026. If results are strong, our competitive window narrows. Recommend accelerating in vivo timeline.
Jan Andrzejczuk · 2026-05-05
IN REVIEW — Funding & Grants. Especially relevant for academic/scientific projects (biotech, deeptech). What funding has supported this research? Shows validation level, remaining resources, and grant track record.
Funding Sources & Grants
Grants and funding that have supported this research. Shows validation level and remaining resources.
🇵🇱
NCN OPUS 24
Active
„Projektowanie i synteza heterobifunkcyjnych degraderów BTK opartych o technologię PROTAC"
PI: prof. dr hab. Anna Kowalska
2024–2027
1,200,000 PLN
UMO-2024/45/B/ST5/01234
🇪🇺
ERC Starting Grant
Completed
„Novel Approaches to Targeted Protein Degradation in Hematological Malignancies"
PI: prof. dr hab. Anna Kowalska
2020–2024
1,500,000 EUR
🏢
NCBR LIDER XIV
Applied
„Optymalizacja właściwości DMPK degraderów BTK do badań przedklinicznych"
PI: dr Michał Zieliński
Pending decision (Q3 2026)
2,000,000 PLN
+ Add funding source
Total confirmed funding: ~1.2M PLN + 1.5M EUR · Active grants provide resources through 2027.
IN REVIEW — Publications. Peer-reviewed publications from the research team. Validates scientific credibility and prior art. Publications added here are automatically linked to the Documents tab as PDF references.
12
Total Papers
+3 in last 2 years
87.3
Combined IF
Team avg: 7.3
Yes
Target Validated
4 studies confirm BTK
Yes
MoA Validated
2 studies (PROTAC-specific)
Growing
Pub. Trend
Active since 2020
🤖 AI-generated summary from PubMed analysis · High confidence · 12 papers matched
Publications
Key papers from the research team. Each publication auto-creates a reference in Project Documents. Showing 3 of 12 (most relevant).
📄
Design and synthesis of novel PROTAC-based BTK degraders with improved oral bioavailability
Kowalska A, Zieliński M, Nowak K et al.
J. Med. Chem. 2025
IF: 7.3
PMID: 38XXXXXX
Core paper
→ Documents
📄
Overcoming C481S-mediated resistance in B-cell malignancies through targeted protein degradation
Kowalska A, Baran T, Wiśniewska E et al.
Blood 2024
IF: 25.5
PMID: 37XXXXXX
High impact
→ Documents
📄
Structure-activity relationships of cereblon-recruiting BTK PROTACs: linker optimization and selectivity profiling
Zieliński M, Kowalska A.
Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2024
IF: 6.7
PMID: 37YYYYYY
Supporting
→ Documents
+ Add publication
3 publications · Combined IF: 39.5 · Team h-index (Kowalska): 28
All publications auto-linked to Documents tab
EXTRA MILE — Scoring. The Heart's 16-dimension evaluation framework (0-3 scale). This is how we assess project attractiveness for The Heart — different from IRL which measures the project's own readiness. Scoring is done after IRL assessment and feeds the composite score used for the VB Process promotion decision.
Project Scoring
Rate each dimension 0-3. Required justification for scores of 0 or 3. Skip dimensions that can't be assessed yet.
FEASIBILITY
Product CAPEX2
Legal Feasibility1
Technology Expertise2
Avg: 1.7 / 3
STRATEGIC FIT
Industry Expertise2
Biz Model Expertise1
Customer Acquisition—
Key Partner Dep.2
Avg: 1.7 / 3 (3/4 filled)
MARKET
Market Size (PL)3
Market Growth3
Avg: 3.0 / 3
PROFITABILITY
Unit Economics—
Economies of Scale—
Not scored yet
DESIRABILITY
Product vs Alternatives3
Competitor Presence2
Avg: 2.5 / 3
EXPANSION & DEFENSE
Foreign Competition2
Scalability2
Defendability2
Avg: 2.0 / 3
Composite Score
13/16 dimensions scored · Confidence: 81%
0.72
EXTRA MILE — VB Recommendation. Final step before VB Process. The VA prepares a recommendation document summarizing all findings from the review and extra mile. VAs + Director of R&D vote. Final go/no-go decision is made by Maciej Marszałek (CEO, The Heart) and Jędrzej Iwaszkiewicz (COO, The Heart).
Recommendation Document
Prepared by VA, reviewed by team
Comprehensive summary of all findings. This document is the basis for the VB Process decision.
Key Strengths
Novel PROTAC chemistry addressing real resistance problem. Strong IP position (FTO clear). Validated target (BTK). Promising founder candidate (dr Zieliński). Large market ($10B+). Active grant funding through 2027.
Key Risks
In vivo efficacy data not yet available (Q3 2026). Key person dependency on prof. Kowalska. Competitive pressure from Nurix (Phase I). CMC/manufacturing not addressed. NCBR grant terms may complicate IP transfer.
IRL Average
2.7 / 9
S1: Incubation
Scoring
0.72
13/16 scored
Moat Strength
2.0 / 3
4/7 powers
Team Assessment
Promising
Founder candidate identified
VB Decision Voting
Voting Open
Two-step process: (1) VA team + Director of R&D vote on recommendation, (2) CEO + COO make final decision.
Step 1: Team Recommendation (5/5 cast)
Jan Andrzejczuk VA · Lead
Strong science + IP. In vivo risk manageable. Recommend promotion.
PROMOTE
Strong science + IP. In vivo risk manageable. Recommend promotion.
Ignacy Studziński VA
FTO confirmed. Market validated. Strong promote.
PROMOTE
FTO confirmed. Market validated. Strong promote.
Bartłomiej Papierzyński VA
Platform potential + strong founder candidate. Worth the investment.
PROMOTE
Platform potential + strong founder candidate. Worth the investment.
Marcel Animucki VA
Agree. PROTAC differentiation is real vs inhibitor landscape.
PROMOTE
Agree. PROTAC differentiation is real vs inhibitor landscape.
Zbigniew Leś Dir. R&D Collab.
Promote with condition: term sheet must be signed before team assignment.
PROMOTE
Promote with condition: term sheet must be signed before team assignment.
Step 2: Leadership Approval
Final go/no-go by The Heart leadership. Team recommendation: PROMOTE (5/5)
Maciej Marszałek CEO, The Heart
Approved. Proceed with term sheet negotiation.
APPROVED
Approved. Proceed with term sheet negotiation.
Jędrzej Iwaszkiewicz COO, The Heart
Approved with note: explore NCBR grant compatibility before signing.
APPROVED
Approved with note: explore NCBR grant compatibility before signing.
Decision: APPROVED for VB Process
Team: 3/3 Promote · Leadership: 2/2 Approved · Next step: Term Sheet negotiation
VB PROCESS — Term Sheet. First milestone: negotiate and sign collaboration terms with the project team / university. Defines The Heart's equity stake, cap table structure, IP licensing terms, and mutual obligations. VB team assignment happens after term sheet is signed.
Term Sheet Status
Negotiation in Progress
✓ Draft Prepared
● Negotiation
Legal Review
Signed
Company name TBD. Will be incorporated after term sheet is signed.
Key Terms
The Heart Equity
15-20%
Standard VB range. Negotiating within band.
University Equity
5-8%
In exchange for exclusive IP license. CTT PW standard range.
Founders Pool
72-80%
Zieliński ~40%, Kowalska ~20%, ESOP ~12-20%
1. CTT PW wants 8%, The Heart targets 5% — meeting in middle at 6-7%. 2. NCBR LIDER grant terms: if awarded, need carve-out for grant IP. 3. Kowalska's part-time CSO arrangement: need to define minimum commitment (20% FTE).
VB PROCESS — Venture Building Team. New team assigned after term sheet is signed. This is The Heart's operational team that will work with the founders to prepare the startup for fundraising. Different from the review team — these are VB specialists.
Waiting for term sheet signature to assign VB team.
Once the term sheet is signed, the VB team will be assigned by COO. Team typically includes: VB Lead, Legal, Finance, and domain specialist.
VB Team (Draft Assignment)
PK
Piotr Krawczyk — VB Lead
Operational lead for venture building phase. Responsible for milestones and fundraising readiness.
Jan Andrzejczuk — Domain Advisor (carry-over from review)
Continuity with review phase. Advisory role on science and IP matters.
?
Legal Counsel — TBD
Company incorporation, shareholder agreements, IP license negotiation.
+ Assign team member
VB PROCESS — Venture Building. The main phase: preparing the startup for fundraising. Workstreams are tracked here with progress. The VB Lead is responsible for driving these to completion. Goal: reach "Fundraising Ready" status.
Venture Building Workstreams
Key workstreams to complete before the startup is fundraising-ready. Check off milestones as they're achieved.
Company Formation & Legal
25%
✓ Term sheet signed
○ Company incorporated (sp. z o.o.)
○ Shareholder agreement executed
○ IP license agreement signed with CTT PW
Team & Organization
0%
○ CEO/COO role confirmed (dr Zieliński)
○ CSO advisory agreement (prof. Kowalska)
○ Key hire: regulatory affairs / CMC
○ ESOP plan established
Product & Science Milestones
0%
○ In vivo efficacy data (xenograft)
○ PK/PD profile complete
○ CRO selected for IND-enabling studies
○ CMC feasibility assessment
Fundraising Preparation
0%
○ Investor pitch deck (v1)
○ Financial model / use of funds
○ Data room prepared
○ Investor pipeline (target list)
○ Pre-seed / seed round terms defined
VB PROCESS — Fundraising Readiness. Checklist to confirm the startup is ready to approach investors. When all critical items are green, the project status changes to "Fundraising Ready" and active investor outreach begins. Successful fundraising → FUNDED.
Readiness Checklist
5/12 Ready
All "Critical" items must be green before fundraising begins. "Important" items should be green; "Nice-to-have" can be in progress.
✓Company incorporatedCritical
✓IP license signedCritical
✓Founder team confirmedCritical
✓Shareholder agreementCritical
✓Pitch deck v1Important
◐In vivo efficacy dataCritical
◐Financial modelImportant
○Data room completeImportant
○Investor pipeline (20+ targets)Important
○CRO engagement for IND-enablingNice-to-have
○PCT patent filingCritical
○Advisory board formedNice-to-have
Fundraising Status
5/12 ready · 3 critical items remaining · Estimated ready: Q4 2026
Project is in VB PROCESS. Complete all critical readiness items, then mark as Fundraising Ready and begin active investor outreach.
FUNDED. Fundraising completed successfully. The startup has closed its round and begins independent operations with The Heart as a shareholder and advisor. This view shows the final state and key outcomes.
🎉
Successfully Funded
This project has completed The Heart's venture building pipeline and closed its funding round. The startup is now operating independently with The Heart as a shareholder.
Round
Pre-seed
Raised
€1.2M
The Heart Stake
17%
Pipeline Duration
14 months
Documents — All Stages. Central repository for all project-related files. Grows throughout the project lifecycle. Documents uploaded or generated anywhere are automatically linked here.
Project Documents
Central repository
+
Drop files here or click to upload
PDF, DOCX, PPTX, XLSX, images, or any file type
📄
PROTAC_BTK_pitch_deck_CTT_PW.pdf
Pitch Deck2.4 MBvia Sourcing
🔬
J_Med_Chem_2025_PROTAC_BTK.pdf
Publication1.1 MBvia Enrichment
📋
FTO_analysis_Patpol_EU_US_2026.pdf
FTO Analysis890 KBvia IP & Know-How
3 documents
Documents added elsewhere are automatically linked here
IN REVIEW — Idea Review Voting. At the end of the review process, the VA presents findings at the Idea Review meeting. The team then votes on whether to promote the project to Extra Mile. Majority decides.
Voting Status
Voting Open
Started by VA after presenting review findings at Idea Review meeting.
Idea Review Meeting
VA presents review findings → team votes → majority decides promotion
Opened by Jan Andrzejczuk on 2026-05-01 · Deadline: 2026-05-03
Votes (4/5 cast)
Jan Andrzejczuk Venture Architect · Lead VA
Strong science, solid IP position, clear unmet need. Recommend Extra Mile.
PROMOTE
Zbigniew Leś Dir. R&D Collaboration
Market is huge, PROTAC competitive but differentiated. Let's go deeper.
PROMOTE
Ignacy Studziński Venture Architect
FTO risk with Arvinas patents needs resolution first. Park until Patpol report.
PARK
Bartłomiej Papierzyński Venture Architect
PROTAC platform has multi-target potential. Team quality is above average. Yes.
PROMOTE
Marcel Animucki Venture Architect
PENDING
Current Result: PROMOTE
3 Promote · 1 Park · 1 Pending — majority reached (3/4 voted Promote)
Vote options: PROMOTE (advance to Extra Mile), PARK (keep for later, needs more info), REJECT (move to Graveyard). Majority of cast votes decides the outcome. Director of R&D Collaboration vote counts the same as VAs.
EXTRA MILE — Outreach & Validation. Deep validation through real conversations: expert interviews, industry consultations, potential partner outreach. This is where we verify assumptions from the review against the market and domain experts. Logged here so the full validation trail feeds IRL and Scoring.
Outreach Log
Track all external conversations, interviews, and consultations. Each entry captures who, when, what was learned.
Expert Interview
Prof. James Morrison — King's College London
2026-05-08
KOL in BTK-targeted therapies. Confirmed that C481S resistance is a growing clinical problem — estimates 35-40% of CLL patients on ibrutinib develop resistance within 5 years. Sees PROTAC approach as "the most promising next-generation strategy." Concerns about PROTAC oral bioavailability in general but impressed by PW team's linker data.
Conducted by: Jan Andrzejczuk
Format: Video call (45 min)
High value
Industry Contact
BD team — Merck KGaA (Darmstadt)
2026-05-12
Exploratory call about their interest in BTK PROTAC platforms. They have an internal TPD program but focused on oncology solid tumors, not hematology. Potentially interested in licensing for hematology indications. Would need to see in vivo efficacy data and PK profile before next conversation.
Conducted by: Zbigniew Leś
Format: Intro call (30 min)
Follow-up Q4 2026
Specialist Consultation
dr Tomasz Baran — Patent Attorney, Patpol
2026-05-15
FTO analysis results review. Two Arvinas patents identified as potential blockers (US11,XXX,XXX and WO2022/XXXXXX) but both cover specific E3 ligase recruiters (VHL-based). PW compound uses CRBN with novel linker — Patpol assessment: "freedom to operate with reasonable confidence." Recommended PCT filing within 6 months.
Conducted by: Jan Andrzejczuk
Format: Meeting + written report
Critical finding
+ Add outreach entry
Validation Summary
Synthesis of what outreach has confirmed, challenged, or left open.
EXTRA MILE — Innovation Readiness Level Assessment. KTH-based 6-dimensional readiness framework. Each dimension rated 1-9. The IRL profile drives the commercialization strategy recommendation: Direct Commercialization (S2), Spin-off (S3), or Incubation (S1).
IRL Assessment
KTH Innovation Readiness Level
Rate each dimension 1-9. The radar chart visualizes the project's readiness profile and suggests a commercialization strategy.
TRL
3
Proof of concept
BRL
2
Value proposition drafted
IPRRL
4
Key IP filed
TmRL
3
Team gaps identified
FRL
2
Funding sources mapped
CRL
2
Need validated (interviews)
Innovation Readiness Profile
Recommended Strategy
S1: Develop IRL (incubation)
Project is at EXTRA MILE. Complete IRL assessment and scoring, then decide: promote to VB Process or park.