Funds and investors

Can they really do
what they claim?

Before an investment, an acquisition or a round, someone has to establish whether the technology exists, whether it is defensible, and whether the people running it can take it where they say. I carry out that examination, and I deliver it in a form an investment committee can actually decide on.

I have done it from both sides of the table. I have filed patents and defended them, founded a technology company in California, and served as managing partner of a venture capital firm: assessing a technology before putting money into it is the same exercise I later bring to a board, except that there I was taking the risk too.

What I look at

Four things, in this order.

One · The technology

Does it exist, or is it a deck?

I do not check it in slides. I check it on the system and with the people who wrote it, separately from the people who present it.

  • What is built and what is still a promise
  • Third-party dependencies nobody declared
  • Technical debt the business plan does not price
  • How much of the product survives twice the customers
The distance between the pitch and the machine
Two · The intellectual property

Does the patent cover the thing that earns?

A patent on the wall is not a barrier to entry. What counts is the real reach of the claims, and who owns them.

  • What the claims actually protect
  • Priority, extensions, jurisdictions, expiry
  • Ownership: the company or the people working in it
  • Freedom to operate against whoever got there first
A trade I know from the inside
Three · The security posture

Would an incident tomorrow erase what you are buying?

After the deal the risk is yours, together with everything that was not mentioned before it.

  • Where customer data sits and who can read it
  • What has already happened and was never disclosed
  • What lands on the parent company: GDPR, NIS2, DORA, AI Act
  • What happens to the target's data if one of its suppliers is breached
The finding that moves the price
Four · The people

Can the team take it where they say?

This is the part no document contains, and almost always the part that decides how the investment ends.

  • Who actually knows how it works, and how many of them there are
  • What stops if one of them leaves
  • The gap between what the founder states and what the team confirms
  • Whether they are able to say “this we cannot do”
You learn it by talking, not by reading
How I deliver it

A short document,
and the willingness to defend it.

From engagement to committee
01

I read what there is: technical documentation, the code if it is opened to me, the patent family, customer and supplier contracts, audit findings.

02

Then I talk to the people, one at a time. It is not an audit and it is better that it does not feel like one: the point is to learn who knows what, and where the versions stop matching.

03

I deliver a short document — the kind an investment committee actually reads — with findings ordered by impact on price, and for each one what can be fixed and what cannot.

04

If it helps, I present it to the committee myself and take the questions. Including when the answer is that the deal, as it stands, should not be done.

If an examination finds nothing, either you were lucky or it was not an examination.
When I am called

The recurring moments.

  • Before a round, an acquisition or an integration
  • When the investment thesis rests on proprietary technology
  • When a patent is the main reason for the valuation
  • When the target handles third-party data and that liability will pass to you
  • After the deal, to accompany the portfolio company through the first months
  • As a second opinion, when you already have a due diligence and it does not convince you
  • When the founder is far better at telling than at showing

I also work on the other side: preparing a technology company for the examination it is about to face, before someone else runs it.

The very fact that you are looking at that companydoes not leave this room.

Confidentiality

I take the confidentiality agreement as given, in both directions, and I sign it before receiving any document. The name of a deal I have worked on does not appear on this site and will not: the best work I have done is the work nobody ever heard about.

Material comes to me and goes back protected. If you prefer, the first conversation happens on an encrypted channel and leaves nothing written down that matters.

Conflict of interest

I am co-founder and technical director of CyberGrant. I do not examine companies that compete with CyberGrant, nor companies in which I hold an interest, and before accepting an engagement I declare in writing what I own. If a conflict emerges during the work, I stop and tell you.

Deals have a date. If yours is close, write to me that there is something to discuss and we will speak.

Get in touch