This document discusses Imprint Energy's printable battery technology. It begins with an overview of wearable electronics trends and Imprint Energy's business model of developing rechargeable zinc-based batteries. It then analyzes competitors and Imprint Energy's value proposition. Recommendations include developing complementary assets, adopting a licensing business model, focusing on health and IoT customers, and emphasizing sustainability and product improvements through R&D. The technology allows for printing thin, flexible, and recyclable batteries to enable new applications in wearable devices.
13. Value Proposition
Rechargeability
Other zinc-based printable batteries are non-rechargeable which limits
their applications
Imprint Energy uses a solid gel polymer electrolyte
14. Thin-film and printed battery market
$5.6 billion by 2015 (NanoMarkets)
Out of this, $2.5 billion will be non-lithium batteries
Annual Growth Rate
70%
60%
58.40%
46.10%
50%
37.90%
40%
35%
Smart cards
RFID tags
30%
20%
10%
0%
Medical Implantables
MEMS, flexible paper,
cosmetics and E-paper
16. Customer Selection
Gigantic wearable consumer electronics market
To exploit the design advantages of the new batteries
(eg. Nike’s FuelBand and the FitBit line)
Large volume
Nike Revenue (in $billion) in 2012
Equipment,
1.2
Others, 0.1
Apparel,
6.3
Footwear,
13.4
19. Customer Selection
• Powered smart card
• Oberthur Technologies
• Advanced security for e-banking and e-shopping
• A single card for payment, authentication and ‘on the spot’
information
• Stand-alone solution, no card reader required
21. Analysis of value proposition
Zinc batteries are already present in
the market but not widely adopted
Not flexible and non-rechargeable
Competitors will erode profits to be
made
Large capital needed to scale
manufacturing
22. Competitor 1: Blue Spark Technologies
Carbon-Zinc printable battery
Value proposition
Cost effective
Attractive form factor
Easy integration
Green and disposable
Customer selection
Battery - Assisted RFID
RF-Linked Sensors
Transdermal Patches
Powered Cards
Interactive Printed Media
23. Competitor 2:
Rechargeable Lithium printable battery
Value proposition
Ultra thin
Environmentally friendly
Long cycle life
Customer selection
Collaboration with ST microelectronics
26. Comparison data against competitors
Parameters
Front Edge
Technologies
(Lithium)
Blue Spark
Technologies
(Zinc-carbon)
Imprint Energy
(Zinc-MnO2)
Traditional
laptop battery
(Lithium)
Energy Density
100 – 150 Wh/kg
125 Wh/kg
130 Wh/kg
128 - 150 Wh/kg
Temperature Range
-40 to 80 oC
-18 to 55 oC
-20 to 70 oC
–20 to 60 °C
Battery Life
(Cycles before
degradation)
> 1000
~ 25 cycles
> 100 cycles
400 – 500 cycles
Fabrication Process
Vacuum
Deposition
SEI formation
Partially Printed
Printed
Vacuum
Deposition
SEI formation
Safety Concerns
Reactive, Nonvolatile
Semi-reactive,
volatile
Non-reactive, nonvolatile
Reactive, Nonvolatile
27. Analysis of value proposition
Zinc batteries are already present in
the market but not widely adopted
Competitors will erode profits to be
made
Large capital needed to scale
manufacturing
28. Scope of Activity
Versatile and scalable manufacturing process
Make use of a traditional technology, screen printing.
Outsource manufacturing of batteries to printing companies
To ramp up manufacturing to a large commercial scale in a few years
Will not build their own factories
Work closely with manufacturing partners
29. Value Chain
• Vertical Disintegration
Imprint
Energy
R&D
Collaborators
Raw material
supplier
Printing
Manufacturer
Outsourced partners /
Licensee
End product
manufacturer
Distribution
and sales
30. Method of value capture
Licensing
To license our technology to collaborators to produce
printable batteries
Pure licensing model may lead to a slow growth
Battery sales
Mass produced batteries of standard shapes/sizes
31. Cost structure
Low cost active materials
High volume structure to enable economies of scale
32. Cost Structure
Item
Material
Printing / Manufacturing
Cost for printable battery
• $2.07 per Wh
• $3.48 per 1400 mAh (Google Nexus One battery capacity)1
• 100 million batteries / printer
• $25k - $800k / printer
Selling price for Google Nexus One lithium ion battery 2 : $5.25 (1400mAh)
1
2
Obtained from Imprint Energy
Obtained from http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/Google-Nexus-One-Carries-$17415-Materials-Cost-iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals.aspx
33. Method of strategic control
Intellectual Property
Patents on solid zinc electrolyte which enable rechargeable battery
Patents on methods of manufacture
Filed provisional patent September 2010
34. IP Strategy
• Prove the feasibility of
the innovation
Phase 1
Phase 2
• Extract value out of IP
• Push the performance
of the battery
• Erect barriers to entry
Phase 3
35. Method of strategic control
Lack of complementary assets
Sales and Marketing expertise
Distribution channels
IT infrastructure
Low market power against owners of
complementary assets
38. Contractual agreements
Imprint energy holds strong IP rights
Low risk of imitation
Contracts to be designed to maximize profits from innovation
Disruptive Innovation
Prove the feasibility and value of innovation
39. Complementary Assets
Custom designed batteries
Key components of wearable
electronics
Different applications
requires
Different shape/size
Different packaging
Different capacity
40. Complementary Assets
Custom designed batteries
Key components of wearable
electronics
Network effects
Virtuous cycle
Develop capabilities to
further improve design of
wearable electronics in the
market and enhance their
performance
Custom designed
batteries enable
novel and
innovative products
Revenue pumped
into R&D to
improve design
Higher demand for
innovative end user
products
Higher revenue
generated from
battery sales
More products sold
increases exposure
of battery
More wearable
electronics
manufacturers
interested
41. Recommendation
Value Chain
Custom designed solutions to enable novel devices to launch into market
Leverage printing partners to scale rapidly without large capital investment
Continuous R&D to enhance products to improve sales
Imitate Qualcomm model:
42. Recommendation
Value Chain
Custom designed solutions to enable novel devices to launch into market
Leverage printing partners to scale rapidly without large capital investment
Continuous R&D to enhance products to improve sales
Printed and thin media
- Enabling
Conventional Batteries
- Early Adopters
- Enhancing
- Billions of devices
- Thin format progress
- Billions of devices
$250MM - $1.3 BN
> $2BN
43. Recommendation
Method of value capture
Adopt a new licensing model working with multiple partners getting upfront
fee for access to design (Imitate ARM model)
Revenue from product manufacturers by offering custom designed solutions
Continue to focus on low cost high volume structure by driving capabilities of
manufacturing partners
44. Recommendation
Customer selection
Focus on new and upcoming technology
industry
Health and wellness wearable products
Wireless sensor network (Internet of
Things)
$2 billion market by 2021 (IDTechEx)
To be present in majority of electronic
devices
47. Recommendation
Value proposition
Focus on sustainability
Continuous R&D improvement to push the boundaries of battery technology
Working with partners to enable innovation in electronics devices
50. Summary
Customer
Selection
Scope of
Activities
Thin
Large Wearable
Electronics firms
IP Strategy
Customized
Solutions
Complementary
Assets
R&D
Novel
technologies
Strategic
Control
Licensing
Value
Proposition
Method of
Value
Capture
Distribution
Rechargeable
Sustainable
Safe
Wireless Sensors
/ Smart cities
Sales and
Marketing
51.
52. Screen Printing Process
Similar to old-fashioned silk-screening where
material is deposited in a pattern by squeezing it
through a mesh over a template
Obtained from http://www.hdmstuttgart.de/international_circle/circular/issues/11_01/ICJ_04_32_
wendler_huebner_krebs.pdf