Intellifit CEO Albert Charpentier (left) and President Ed Gribbin

Fit a Suit, Screen for Weapons

February / March 06 By: Judith Graybeal Volume 4 Number 1

Print this Article

E-mail this Article

Great fitting clothes and security screening wouldn't appear to have much in common, yet small businesses in both industries are commercializing the same technology—€”the Millimeter Wave Holographic Scanning device. Developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the scanner provides full-body, 360-degree, three-dimensional coverage of a person in near real time. The technology was named the most promising innovation of 2004 by R&D Magazine, and the laboratory received a Federal Laboratory Consortium Award in 2005 for commercializing the scanner.

The technology can be applied to many industries. The first two licensees are SafeView Inc., of Santa Clara, Calif.(www.safe-view.com) and Intellifit, Inc., of Philadelphia (www.intellifit.com). The licenses were negotiated through Battelle, which manages PNNL for the Department of Energy.

SafeView uses the scanner for security applications. It is the first of a new generation of screening tools that can detect concealed weapons, explosives or contraband, including ceramic guns, plastic explosives and carbon fiber composite blades, something metal detectors cannot do.

Intellifit adapted the scanner for the apparel industry to help customers quickly select the best-fitting garments. The scanner obtains dozens of precise body measurements in less than 10 seconds while the customer remains fully clothed. Fortune magazine named Intellifit one of 25 breakout companies of 2005.
Rick Rowe, president and chief executive officer of SafeView, and Intellifit CEO Albert Charpentier share their experiences in commercializing the millimeter wave technology.

How did you find the millimeter wave technology?
Rowe: One of our founders, Mike Lyons, meets with his contacts at PNNL regularly and was made aware of the technology through them and also via our attorney, Tim Moore at Cooley Godward.
Charpentier: I found PNNL through an internet search in July 2002 when I was looking for alternative body scan technologies that might be used in collecting measurements for apparel sizing. After reading about the 3-D holographic scanner on the PNNL web site, I decided to contact the licensing officer Gary Morgan, and I got him on the first ring.

What did you see in this technology that could help your business?
Rowe: I saw the technology as having the potential to improve security at checkpoints. This was very timely coming after 9/11.
Charpentier: All previous scan technologies, many of which had been tried in the apparel industry, required the person getting scanned to undress. This proved too invasive to gain any real acceptance. The millimeter wave technology did not require undressing. It would also allow us to gain wide-scale consumer acceptance to achieve our ultimate goal of helping consumers shop over the internet, knowing what brands and sizes would fit them best.

Where have you gone in the past to explore technology solutions for your company, and why did you choose a national lab this time?
Rowe: In the past, we've gone to universities. However, we've decided to choose PNNL because it has a better appreciation of business needs.
Charpentier: We had never looked outside our core group of engineers for technology solutions. We found PNNL by accident, a very fortunate accident.

Describe the negotiation and licensing process.
Rowe: The technology formed the basis of our company. We located in Silicon Valley where the software and hardware talent needed is abundant. We worked with PNNL to transfer the technology immediately and also continue to fund research. We see PNNL as a research partner, not a developer.
Charpentier: Once we did our initial due diligence on the millimeter wave technology to determine its feasibility (August to November 2002), we entered into an option agreement to pursue a license. Our option was in place for about 15 months, with various extensions, before we executed a final licensing agreement in early 2004. During that time, PNNL determined that we were the best suited company to commercialize this technology for the apparel industry, and we determined that the technology could be adapted, although with significant additional work, to our applications.

What challenges did you have to overcome?
Rowe: We felt that the PNNL business liaison understood venture capitalists and their business needs. The challenges were mostly driven by the time it took and legal issues. When things had to go to Battelle in Columbus, Ohio, significant delays and issues always seemed to occur. It's our understanding that the process has changed. We hope we helped to create this change.
Charpentier: Negotiating with PNNL was, overall, a very positive experience. PNNL's Eric Stenehjem and Gary Morgan guided us through the license process and were genuinely interested in seeing us succeed. The key challenge was, and remains, in determining the right business model for Intellifit to pursue in a mature industry known for its aversion to adopting or even experimenting with new technology.

How did the technology give you a business edge?
Rowe: SafeView wouldn't have existed without the technology.
Charpentier: The technology has enabled us to create a scanner for apparel that was truly consumer friendly, which has gained us great publicity and consumer acceptance.

What have you done with the technology?
Rowe: We have commercialized the technology and are now in production and selling systems worldwide. We have systems in Iraq, United Kingdom, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Singapore, Holland, and soon in Thailand, Spain, and Italy.
Charpentier: After receiving the license, significant work went into creating the physical scanner we have today. We have now sold or leased 30 Intellifit systems to a variety of specialty retailers, and we have installed our own kiosks in shopping malls to attract consumers to the technology and then our web site.

Are you continuing to work with PNNL?
Rowe: We continue to fund selected research at PNNL.
Charpentier: We continue to work with PNNL engineers to find ways to improve the technology and, potentially, to reduce costs.

What suggestions do you have for PNNL or any national laboratory to make its licensing process easier for businesses?
Rowe: I think laboratories must speed up the licensing process and to not require money up front, such as advance license fees. Cash is the most important asset for startup companies, so taking equity cash out of the company in its formative stages can be counterproductive.
Charpentier: I think PNNL did a very good job in shepherding us through the process. Many unknowns exist when new technology is created, adapted and deployed. It would have been mutually beneficial if the process had been more flexible to enable us to recognize, learn and adapt to developing market knowledge and for that knowledge to be reflected in the license terms. Some key provisions are based on what later turned out to be erroneous assumptions on both our parts.

What advice would you give to businesses seeking to commercialize technologies from national labs?
Rowe: They should be prepared to design for commercial use. Labs are great at making one of a kind to prove it works. What you are after is the concept. Plan enough engineering money to get it done correctly for production.
Charpentier: My advice to others is to do their homework and go for it. I think tremendous business opportunities await those who do the diligence and are willing to work hard with a national lab to achieve their vision.

Judith Graybeal is a senior communications specialist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.