
Breathe, Then Build
You're reading Entrepreneur United Kingdom, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.
David Harris never set out to be a founder. For more than 30 years, he worked behind the scenes of the respiratory drug delivery industry, quietly growing frustrated with its obsession with imitation over innovation. Inhalers were treated as afterthoughts - mere packaging for the drug - and time after time, projects failed not due to lack of funding, but due to a lack of understanding of the physics that actually governs how patients breathe. In founding CHI, a Cambridge based healthcare technology company, Harris made a bold bet: that true change comes not from copying what exists, but from finally solving what doesn't. And to do that, he had to strike out on his own. Entrepreneur UK finds out more....
What inspired you to start your business?
I've worked in the respiratory drug delivery industry for over 30 years, and my frustration has accumulated over this time as the industry has simply tried to copy existing tech - rather than addressing the real need. There is a huge sector set up around copying existing technology on the market. For example, I worked at a number of product and technology development consultancies and the vast majority of project work was focused on developing generic 'me-too' devices that didn't offer any improvement whatsoever for the patient.
Pharmaceutical companies develop drugs - and treat the inhaler as packaging - and if it is easier to just copy something that is already proven, they aren't going to try and improve things. Copying existing devices isn't easy or cheap, so it is a false economy. Almost all of these projects fail, and never reach the market, or the patient. I didn't start my career dreaming of starting my own business. I've focused on inhalers because I want to improve patient outcomes. Over time I came to realise that this is what needs to be done for the industry to see real change, and as the consultancies I worked at were limited to do what was asked of them, starting a company to really innovate in this area seemed to be the most logical choice."
What was the biggest challenge you faced in the early stages?
Money. We nearly went under a few times, and that is hard especially when you have bills to pay. Developing technology takes time, licensing it takes time, and then getting through regulatory hurdles takes time, and there aren't many VC companies out there who have the patience for such long exit times. As a result, we've had to keep a tight control on costs while at the same time taking a lot of risks.
Technically there are challenges too. The equipment that you need to acquire data is very expensive, so we had to invent cost-effective ways of testing the technology to prove out concepts, test our assumptions and to be able to confidently show potential customers and partners.
There is also a significant lack of understanding within the pharmaceutical companies, and in fact generally, about respiratory physics. In a laboratory setting you can set up an experiment to mimic a patient inhaling in a very controlled manner - but in the real world it is a dynamic, transient, and complex event. Trying to work out what actually goes on has historically been difficult to do precisely, which is why clinical trials often just don't go as expected. That shows that the underlying physics are just not understood.
How has the UK's economic environment impacted your business decisions?
Ten years ago, it was possible to apply for grants, but there are fewer grants available and much stronger competition now. We've tried to stay clear of VCs as much as we can because we need people who understand the long timescales that are necessary for medical products, and the challenges of innovation. Instead, we've looked to partner with larger companies (like Aptar Pharma) in the industry who can bring expertise and commercial reach that we don't have. It was a model born out of necessity, but it is a very promising approach as it gives us a clear route to scalability, and that is important to our customers.
How do you stay ahead of industry trends and innovate within your field?
We listen and we try to understand the future barriers and challenges that the industry will face. For example, patients have very different inhalation capabilities, which can be affected by the condition that you are trying to treat. This lack of consistency among patients and in clinical trials is an issue, so we developed a platform called Aeolus, which has an in-built amplifier. This means that the formulation inside the inhaler doesn't know if it is being inhaled by an old person with poor lung function or an Olympic swimmer - they'd get very similar doses.
Another example is that we also heard from the industry that new generations of large molecules (like biologics) will require larger masses of drug to be delivered. Rather than expecting a patient to use a traditional inhaler multiple times, we set about developing Quattrii, which is a platform specifically for large fill masses. There are many other trends that we've identified that impact on the decisions we make. But sometimes, inspiration comes from left field. When it comes to 'how' we innovate, that requires hiring the right people and creating the right culture.
What steps do you take to build a strong company culture?
We hire the right people. Being based in Cambridge gives us access to incredibly creative people, but we need people with integrity and who are open, honest and trustworthy. We empower everybody to contribute towards solving problems and, importantly, give them permission to fail. The reality is that we fail more than we succeed, but if we take the time to understand and challenge our failures, we can learn and improve. If you hire good, honest people and offer them a safe space, then they will feel able to take responsibility and have the freedom to explore solutions.
What advice would you give to someone thinking about starting a business in the UK today?
Don't let your ego get in the way. Pursue your ideas but don't become blinkered. Challenge your ideas and biases or find people who can. It's also important to be prepared for the financial risk, which can be difficult as you get older. I was in my late 40s when I started CHI, which meant that I had a good amount of industry experience and a large network, but at the same time I have children and a mortgage. At times, these financial pressures have felt overwhelming, especially in the early stages.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Entrepreneur
an hour ago
- Entrepreneur
4 Signs It's Time to Abandon Your Patent
How to make smart, strategic calls on when to abandon patents — and why doing so is essential to long-term innovation and budget health Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Patents are often filed early, before a startup knows what the market really wants. That's smart, but it comes with a challenge: Not every idea turns out to be worth protecting. Markets shift. Products pivot. And eventually, founders ask: Should we keep paying for this patent or cut our losses? It's a tough call. Abandoning a patent midway can feel like giving up. But continuing just because you've already spent money? That's the sunk cost trap, and it quietly drains your budget. Many startups keep prosecuting every idea, paying rejections, annuities and attorney fees. But a smart IP strategy means knowing what to keep and what to walk away from. Here's how to make that call strategically. Related: How to Identify the Patent-Worthy Innovations in Your Business Built-in checkpoints in patent lifecycle — use them Roughly, you can split a patent's entire lifecycle cost into three parts. The first third goes to drafting the application, another third is for arguing the patent through issuance, and the final third covers patent maintenance fees for the next 20+ years. In a way, these financial checkpoints are decision checkpoints, too. When drafting, consider whether the invention aligns with your core business or is just a side experiment that may never get to market. During prosecution, evaluate whether it's still worth the legal wrangling, as each round of argument is costly. And when renewal fees come due, ask if the patent still supports your product, blocks competitors or adds leverage against others in the market. Unfortunately, many startups treat these pivotal stages as administrative formalities. Instead of evaluating whether continued investment is justified at each stage, many companies default to pushing forward — whether by extending prosecution unnecessarily, filing continuations without a clear purpose, or simply paying maintenance fees — without assessing strategic alignment. That's how portfolios get bloated with low-impact patents. The only solution here is patent pruning: Abandon some patent filings at the right checkpoints. Related: Don't Let Patent Costs Crush Your Startup — Here's How to Protect Your IP Without Breaking the Bank What are the signs that it's time to abandon a patent? Every dollar spent defending or maintaining a weak patent is a dollar not spent protecting something truly valuable. Therefore, you must look for the signs at different checkpoints to spot a patent to discard. Here are some signs to look for: 1. No market validation A patent is only valuable if the protected product actually sells. If your invention fails to gain customer traction, the patent will be a failure. Experts emphasize focusing on "high-impact" problems with real demand. Without that market pull, even a granted patent is a dead weight. For example, Google Glass — once hyped as the future of AR eyewear — never found a viable consumer market. It was pulled from sale in 2015 (and again in 2023) due to poor adoption, illustrating how patents tied to unvalidated products offer no return. 2. Shifting industry direction Industries evolve, and a patent can lose value if the tech horizon moves on. In practice, companies are advised to ask whether their invention still aligns with "the target industry and market." If adjacent innovations eclipse your solution (for example, cloud services replacing old networking hardware), the patent's relevance vanishes. In that scenario, it makes little sense to keep paying maintenance fees. Better to refocus on protections for innovations that fit the new direction of your field. 3. Prior art kills the novelty Sometimes, what initially feels like a breakthrough ends up being something others have already attempted or fully disclosed. If prior art eclipses your claims, the chances of securing meaningful protection drop significantly. At that point, even if you receive a patent, it may be so narrow that it offers little real-world value. Continuing to prosecute a case like this can quickly become a drain on time and legal budget. 4. Weak business use case Every patent in your portfolio should earn its keep through business impact or the potential to do so on your current roadmap. If it's not protecting a revenue-generating product, blocking a competitor or supporting licensing efforts, its value is questionable. Startups often hang on to patents without a clear path to monetization or strategic use. But unless a patent strengthens your market position or serves a legal or commercial purpose, it's just another expense on the books. To actively prune your patent portfolio, just looking for signs isn't enough. As the portfolio grows, you need a deliberate, repeatable process for patent abandonment assessment. Build a patent pruning system: Health checks and ranking framework An effective patent pruning system should take two things into consideration: 1) lifecycle stage and 2) multiple perspectives. For the first one, you want to start by ranking each patent across key lifecycle stages: At the idea stage : Is this innovation aligned with your product roadmap or market differentiation? Post-filing : Has the landscape shifted? Is the application still strategically relevant? Pre-renewal: Is the granted patent still supporting revenue, blocking competitors or enhancing leverage? The higher a patent scores at a certain stage, the more you want to invest in it. Please note that not only your legal counsel team but also others, such as product, technology, marketing and finance, must contribute to this ranking system, as pruning cannot be undone. The goal is to ensure that patents are evaluated through a business lens, not just a legal one. Consider using patent management tools that provide full portfolio visibility and enable seamless collaboration as part of your patent pruning process. Related: 4 Surprising Patent Myths That Could Cost You Big — What You Need to Know Now Pruning a patent portfolio isn't just about saving money; it's about fueling what's next with the reclaimed budget. In 2020, IBM stepped back from chasing patent volume. "We're no longer pursuing patent leadership," they said. "We're being more selective." The result? Fewer filings, stronger focus and more investment in high-growth areas like AI and quantum computing. That's the lesson: Pruning isn't cutting back. It's reallocating toward where your business is growing. Because IP should follow your future, not fund your past.


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Sustainable Funds Rebound With Global Inflows of $4.9 Billion
The global market for sustainable funds recovered in the second quarter after posting record-high redemptions during the first three months of the year, according to an analysis by Morningstar Inc. Against a backdrop of 'ESG backlash and volatility sparked by geopolitical tensions and US tariffs, the picture for ESG funds improved last quarter,' led by investments in European-based offerings, said Hortense Bioy, head of sustainable investing research at Morningstar Sustainalytics.

Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
KKR Faces EU Probe Into Information Provided in $26 Billion NetCo Acquisition
The European Union opened an investigation into whether KKR KKR 1.62%increase; green up pointing triangle supplied the block's merger regulator with false or misleading information before the investment firm's multibillion-dollar purchase of Telecom Italia TIT 0.72%increase; green up pointing triangle unit NetCo was unconditionally cleared by officials last year. The European Commission approved the companies' deal in May 2024, initially ruling that KKR's bid to snap up Telecom Italia's broadband network assets for up to 22 billion euros ($25.90 billion) wouldn't affect competition in Europe. The watchdog had said the merged company wouldn't be able to deteriorate the conditions for rivals' access to services due to long-term agreements that FiberCop—a joint venture between Telecom Italia and KKR—held with several companies.