Guest blog written by Adrian Tombling, partner and patent attorney at Withers & Rogers LLP.
The US Supreme Court ruling in the so-called ‘Myriad case’ regarding the patentability of human genes will undermine global biotech investment but all is not lost. Judge Thomas, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, effectively tightened the rules on the patentability of human genes, finding that all naturally occurring gene sequences, even when isolated in the laboratory, are not patentable. In future, only non-naturally occurring gene sequences (e.g., sequences that have been modified or entirely created in the laboratory), will be patentable, and therefore, attract investment from biotech companies. Read more »
Published by Jill Wechsler, Washington editor on June 16, 2013
The Supreme Court decision blocking patents on naturally-occurring genes has generated predictions of doom for biotech innovation, along with expectations of more healthy competition in discovering new treatments and diagnostics. Although some commentators regarded the decision, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, as a “major reversal” in longstanding patent policy, many leaders of the biopharmaceutical research community described the ruling as likely to spur innovation and the development of therapies and companion diagnostics necessary for advances in personalized medicine.
All sides had legitimate reasons to claim victory: patient and research groups anticipated easier access to more effective and efficient tests and therapies; biotech companies were relieved that the Justices did not invalidate ancillary patents surrounding genetic discoveries. A number of testing firms announced plans to develop newer, better, less costly tests using the BRCA genetic mutations. Myriad Genetics said its test for breast cancer would remain a leading option for patients and that it would continue its R&D program based on hundreds of other patents.
The ultimate outcome remains to be seen. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) is expected to revise practices for granting patents for isolated DNA, although the court specifically permits protection for companies that modify genetic material or create new products based on human genes. But in upholding patents on complementary, or cDNA, the Court left the door open to further debate and legal battles over just what genetic manipulations qualify for patent protection.
Yet, there is reason to hope that the unanimous, non-partisan Court ruling will help clarify patent policy related to biotechnology, a subject that remains tangled up in multiple legal cases and legislative proposals. And the non-political nature of this fairly technical ruling should provide grounds for optimism that the system can address some issues on the legal merits of the case.
Published by Adeline Siew on May 15, 2013
The global market for biosimilar drugs has been forecasted to be worth $2.445 billion this year, according to a new reportby British market research specialist Visiongain. The growth represents a 20% increase from last year and accounts for approximately 2% of the overall biologics market. Moreover, the global biosimilars market is expected to experience a steady growth over the next 10 years, driven by worldwide launches of such products, particularly in the EU and US. Read more »
Published by Adeline Siew on May 14, 2013
Evidence of health outcomes is what payers want to see. As a result, biotech companies are now focussing more on demonstrating economic value, for example, by showing survival benefit of a cancer drug or superiority to branded or generic competitors. Read more »
As pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies intensify product development in biologics, they are tasked with meeting the challenges of biologic-based drug development and manufacturing. Unlike traditional small-molecule drugs, stability studies for biopharmaceuticals can be one of the most critical and challenging aspects of large-molecule drug development. The size and complexity of most proteins provide fertile ground for intramolecular changes and multiple routes of degradation, and to assess their effects, each must be correlated to the bioactivity of the drug. Pharmaceutical Technology will examine biopharmaceutical stability studies in more depth by gaining input from leading industry experts, in a live webcast, “New Strategies for Biopharmaceutical Stability Testing,” on Thursday May 9th from 2:00 to 3:00 PM EST. Read more »
Ernst & Young recently released its annual biotechnology industry report, Beyond Borders: Matters of Evidence, stating that while the major players are performing well, it is essential that small- to mid-size biotech companies focus on demonstrating the value of products in their pipelines instead of just creating a drug that works. If not, they will lose out in a challenging environment, especially now that there is a global shift towards evidence-based healthcare. Read more »
In recent years, large pharmaceutical companies have launched a variety of initiatives to restock ailing pipelines and boost business performance including mergers and acquisitions, diversifying business portfolios to non-pharmaceutical products, downsizing, spinoffs, and entering the biopharmaceutical arena.
Whatever the approach, pharmaceutical companies want balanced portfolios with programs at various stages and risk profiles, says Melinda Richter, founder and CEO of San Francisco-based Prescience International in a BioPharm International podcast.
To date, most Big Pharma companies have partnered or acquired assets of biopharmaceutical companies with products in late-stage development, says Richter. However, as the availability of late-stage development opportunities shrink and the landscape becomes more competitive, Big Pharma is turning to more early-stage partnerships with academia and early-stage companies.
It is attractive to for the pharmas to go after early-stage companies because “by nature, they are smaller, they are nimbler, and they are willing to take the risks that the large pharmas just can’t. These small companies have to swing for the fences and they have to win. Pharmas have a lot to protect. They have to be more conservative,“ says Richter.
More scalable innovation opportunities are another part of the story, says Richter.
For example, last year, Merck announced a $90 million, seven-year commitment for the California Institute for Biomedical Research (Calibr), an independent, not-for-profit organization established to accelerate the translation of basic biomedical research to innovative new medicines.
However, for hands-on research, startup companies need laboratory and office space, as well as specialized equipment. Janssen Labs, located on the West Coast Research Center of Janssen Research & Development in La Jolla, Calif., offers short-term leases on wet laboratory and office space. Tenants also have access to core research facilities and instruments.
The facility, operated by Prescience International, has a “no strings attached” policy. Janssen R&D does not take an equity stake or first right of refusal in the work of tenants, protecting the entrepreneurial rights of startup companies that choose independence.
Janssen Labs and Calibr are two options offered by Big Pharma that will be explored in the session “And Now for Something Completely Different: How Will Pharma Access External Early-Stage Innovation?” at the 2013 BIO International convention on April 23, 2013.
President Obama’s State of the Union Address on Feb. 12, 2013 touched on some issues that may directly impact the pharmaceutical industry: healthcare reform, innovation, and job creation. So how has the pharmaceutical industry responded?
Developing and maintaining the right labor pool is an ongoing challenge for any industry, and it is one that the pharmaceutical industry also is facing. Recent attention in the pharmaceutical industry has focused on the restructuring that has occurred and that is still occurring among the large pharmaceutical companies. And while re-allocating resources, including labor resources, is always a crucial task for companies, it is a challenge made even more difficult amidst shifting industry fundamentals and a demand for higher productivity from scientific talent.
The pharmaceutical industry requires employees with a high-end scientific skill set, and PwC’s 2012 Global CEO Survey indicates that pharmaceutical companies are having a hard time finding the right people. A recent report by PwC’s Health Research Institute (HRI) takes a look at how changes in R&D models have affected the pharmaceutical workforce.
Published by Christopher Allen on February 1, 2013
under Biotech, Trends
San Francisco and Boston sit on opposite coasts and each has a rich history and character that make them distinct. However, they share some similarities: both cities are centers of top biotechnology hubs in the US. Read more »