Home Biotechnology Industry News
Biotechnology industry news, updates, and press releases

This paper is an examination of the economics, organizational dynamics and structural factors inhibiting an electronic market for intellectual property.  Several intermediaries exist to facilitate the transition of intellectual property (IP) from sellers to buyers.  Over the past 20 years, a number of companies attempted to create an online “eBay for IP.”  These IP Exchanges (IPEs) failed to gain traction in competition with other mediums that provide channels to facilitate IP transactions.  Compounding the problem is the concentration of intellectual property assets amongst a small group of institutions and within those institutions as well as organizational hurdles inherent in academic technology transfer offices.  As a result, the business model for an online IPE market is fundamentally challenging, and no successful IPE exists to date.

The purpose of this study was to test the unexplored relationship between market orientation (MO), alliance orientation (AO), and business performance (PERF) in the medical/healthcare subsector of the Canadian biotechnology industry.  The study surveyed Canadian biotechnology executives via mail and web-based questionnaires.  It was found that the relationship between MO and PERF was positive and significant and the relationship between AO and PERF was positive and significant.  It was also found that the relationship between MO and AO was positive and significant, supporting the existence of a mediation relationship.  Specifically, MO’s influence on PERF was found to be fully mediated by AO.  This suggests that Canadian medical/healthcare biotechnology companies that were highly market-oriented were also highly alliance-oriented, and highly alliance-oriented companies were top performing companies.  This study outlines the apparent sequential relationship between market-oriented behavioural commitments, alliance-oriented activities, and business performance outcomes among Canadian biotechnology companies.  Furthermore, it has business development and the commercialization process implications for biotechnology managers.

The prospect of government regulation, product liability lawsuits, and customer reliance on third-party payers contribute to the complexity of valuing biotech start-ups. In addition, the inherent complexity of biologic drug manufacturing and storage creates secondary risks that must be considered in a valuation.

Biomedical and health entrepreneurship continues to expand around the world. Driven by global pressures to optimize the allocation of scarce resources, life science bioentrepreneurs are creating innovative products, platforms, service and systems that deliver more value. As a result, the demand for biomedical and health professional entrepreneurial talent has increased and biomedical and health innovation and entrepreneurship education and training (BEET) programs are growing to fill the gap.

This paper highlights 10 trends in bioentrepreneurship education and training

If you walk into most private biotech company boardrooms today, it is likely that you will hear a discussion about whether to go public. Companies at every stage of development are either getting ready to file for an initial public offering or thinking about it. Although the slowdown in new issues at the end of 2013 gave observers pause that the robust biotech IPO market of 2013 might slow down in 2014, the reality has been just the opposite. By the middle of March, 28 life sciences companies had completed initial public offerings on U.S. exchanges, raising $1.8 billion in new capital, and collectively on average trading 47.4 percent above their initial offering price.

Industrial biotechnology is the commercial application of biotechnology using cells or components of cells, like enzymes, for industrial production processes including consumer goods, bioenergy and biomaterials. In the last years this area has gone through a fast technological development resulting in a high number of basic technologies based on research efforts at universities and research institutions. But a technology transfer gap exists between basic research and the commercialisation of the results. This gap can be closed by academic spin-offs which manage the technology transfer from universities and research institutions to industrial companies. After the spin-off process, the technology is further developed within the new venture normally using additional resources from external investors. As soon as the technology reaches a certain grade of maturity, the spin-offs can co-operate with an established company and work for them as a service provider or be acquired. The chosen approach of technology transfer depends on the type of company. Whereas multinational enterprises (MNEs) are very active in making new technologies available both by acquiring spin-offs or engaging them as service providers, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are focused on partnering with spin-offs, due to limited financial and management resources.

Ihave had the pleasure of participating in national forums on biotechnology development in diverse countries. A common theme I see is that emerging economies wish to develop ‘a biotechnology industry like the United States.’ I generally temper these ambitions by explaining that the United States does not have a biotechnology industry per se, but rather a handful of states have very strong biotechnology concentrations and many other states are still trying to build their domestic biotechnology industries. So the lesson for many emerging economies is to set ambitions at the US-state level rather than the US-national level. Furthermore, I also caution against aiming for drug development. Drug development is extremely expensive and risky—focusing on domestic agricultural or industrial biotechnology opportunities may be a better option.

In recent years, the major research-intensive biopharmaceutical companies (big pharma) have come face to face with a perfect storm of eroding profit margins from blockbuster expiration and generic competition coupled with growing R&D expenses and declining advances in truly novel therapeutics. With long-term research divisions shed in favor of short-term outsourcing options and with public good will at historic lows, industry innovators have sought to reinvent the model of big pharma, its relationship in public-private partnerships, and the role of technology and technology policy in reform. In this paper, we highlight a number of the major alliances reshaping the industry and the role of government, research institutions, and other players in the public-private interface in these endeavors. In particular, this paper looks beyond traditional biotechnology parternships and focuses instead on the developing consortia between biopharmaceutical companies and with clinical research organizations and academic institutions. We examined each alternative model of alliance, identified specific hurdles and potentials for increased productivity.

If your reader cannot render the information below, go to http://www.DrugPatentWatch.com/innovation to see the latest expirations

This newsletter is a free service of DrugPatentWatch
DrugPatentWatch offers comprehensive details on FDA approved drugs, developers, and their patents

Drug Patent Expirations for March 18 2014

TradenameApplicantGeneric NamePatent Expiration
Mar 18, 2014

*Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. See the DrugPatentWatch database for complete details.

Instant Access to Deep Knowledge on Small-Molecule Drugs

Subscribers have access to valuable datasets, including:
  • Patent litigation
  • Clinical trial information
  • International patent data
  • Paragraph IV challenges
  • Tentative approvals
  • Drug Master Files
  • Formulation
  • Suppliers
  • Dynamic search capabilities with data export
  • More…

More than 6,400 small-molecule drugs from 1,700 branded and generic pharmaceutical companies and 700 suppliers, and more than 80,000 U.S. and international patents.

See the Database Preview and Plan Comparison. Contact Us with any questions.

The above list does not discriminate between dominant and non-dominant patents. Drugs listed above may be protected by additional patents and other regulatory protections. See the DrugPatentWatch database for complete details

Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided information. There is no warranty that the information contained herein is error free. Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.
All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors.