In This Issue LES Winter Meeting: President's Message: Sector Spotlight Chemicals, Energy and Materials Sector: Healthcare Sector: Foundation Focus: Activities of the Licensing Foundation,
USA & Canada, Inc.: Chapter Launch: A Traveler's Guide To LES Local Chapters: LES Spring Meeting: Revolutionize Your Thinking In Atlanta 2007 Rings In With Advanced PDS Courses LES Annual Meeting: Local Chapters Celebrate The Holidays |
Sector Spotlight New Committees, Activities and Trends
Biomedical Device
Committee Formed
The Biomedical Device Committee, including founding co-chairs, Roger C. Hahn of Washington, D.C. and Mark G. Bloom of Raleigh, NC, will work toward its mission of providing a forum for education, discussion and networking for LES members interested in the technology transfer and licensing of Biomedical Device-related technologies. The committee will also investigate and present issues of interest to the Biomedical Device industry through LES publications and live content, as well as introduce and champion the biomedical device committee to LES and the LES membership at large. As stated by Don Jarrell of TAEUS International Corporation, “There is a fundamental overlap that bioengineering and medical device subject matter has in both the computer/electronics and biotechnology/life science fields.” Don, who was one of the movers behind the formation of the Biomedical Device Committee, suggested that this nexus of expertise played a crucial role in solving complex problems such as the creation of hip and knee replacements, kidney dialysis machines, heart valves and pacemakers, heart-lung machines, medical imaging tools, arthroscopic surgery tools and other techniques. In the future, this may lead to novel treatments for cancer, vascular and neurological disease as well as improved medical instrumentation, medical imaging systems including MRI, CT, PET, medical ultrasound, MEMs fabrication, DNA analysis techniques, and organ and tissue replacement. LES hopes that by forming the Biomedical Device Committee there will be increased cooperation between the HC and HT Sectors and that a clear identity will be provided within the LES structure for one of the most exciting and fastest-growing technology fields in licensing. Along those lines, the co-chairs will seek specific areas for collaboration related to licensing, patenting, and regulatory/marketing strategies employed within the biomedical device industry. The co-chairs also plan to examine the impact of public policy issues, such as regulation and reimbursement that affect the licensing process. LES is currently accepting proposals for the 2007 Annual Meeting. Suggestions for workshops, add-ons, and other types of content and sessions for the new committee should be submitted promptly to the Co-Chairs. During the LES Winter Meeting in San Francisco, we will host a roundtable discussion at 7:00a.m. on Friday, February 23. Anyone interested in volunteering or providing recommendations and comments to the Committee is strongly encouraged to attend.
CEMC Activities At LES
Annual Meeting Many thanks from the Chemicals, Energy and Materials Committee (CEMC) co-chairs to the CEMC members who attended the 2006 Annual Meeting and made it a success. For those of you who could not be there, here is a taste of what you missed.
We emphasized to the attendees the many opportunities to volunteer and help the committee; for example, we asked for volunteers for:
Some people graciously volunteered. However, more volunteers would be welcome. Anyone that would like to assist in any of the above projects is welcome to contact me at venturino@stevensdavis.com or the co-chair at leslie.goff@noetictechnologies. org. Also, anyone who has volunteered, but has not heard from me or Les, please contact us. We might have lost our notes saying you volunteered (we are only human). We are also planning for next year’s Winter, Spring and Annual meetings. In particular, we solicited ideas from the audience on topics of interest and we received many ideas. CEMC programs can be in a variety of formats including Add-ons, mini-plenaries, workshops, and round tables. Also, almost any topic relating to chemicals, energy or materials technology development, protection or licensing is fair game. Tuesday evening, the CEMC held a lively joint reception with IUGT followed by our traditional off-site networking dinner at Trattoria Dopo Teatro. As with the committee meeting, the dinner had about twice as many people as usual so the restaurant gave us one of their largest rooms which made a great atmosphere for networking. Our thanks to Francis Via, who did a fine job organizing this dinner. CEMC
also put on an excellent selection of educational sessions during the Annual
Meeting. We started with workshops on Monday and finished with our first
ever Global Energy Day on Wednesday. The Global Energy Day program was a
star studded event with such luminaries as Sam All in all, the meeting filled us with enthusiasm and new ideas. CEMC hopes to build on this as the year progresses.
From Licensing To M&A: A Stepped Up Challenge For
L&BD
Though consolidation of biotech by big pharma has long been predicted, only very recently has this materialized to any meaningful extent. Beginning in 2005, big pharma companies began acquiring biotechs at a torrid pace, unlike anything seen in the past. Most of the new crop of acquisitions lacks marketed products. Instead, these companies possess pipelines rich in potential opportunities, generally in the early or mid-stages of human testing. Several underlying factors have come together at once to create a sellers’ market for biotech firms with early- to mid-stage pipelines:
Consequently, big pharma companies are now willing to pay more, sometimes far more, than public and private investors for development stage assets. This discordant view of the value of pipeline assets between Big Pharma and public investors is likely only to intensify. For the majority of biotechs that continue to pursue a dream of full integration, this foundational shift in the way companies and their assets are valued has enormous strategic significance. Only a minority of private and public investors in biotech companies with development-stage assets will be able to resist the advances of a motivated Big Pharma buyer. Biotech company development may come to resemble that of medical device firms, whose “return on innovation” comes via a pre-planned exit to one of the few large, established franchise players that thoroughly dominate the customer channel. The path to success and increased shareholder value for development stage biotechs is through development of differentiated, multi-product pipelines, preferably with some degree of therapeutic area focus. The heretofore common strategy of channeling all available resources into the latest-stage program and giving short shrift to the rest of the portfolio needs to be reconsidered. “One-trick pony” companies that have thrown all available resources into bringing one product to the market will prove, in the main, to be of little interest to Big Pharma buyers. For biotech companies, the “keep or partner” decision is now complicated by more than a consideration of available development dollars and the degree of market accessibility. Since IPO exits are only a remote possibility for investors, the value of the “validating deal” with a big pharma company has plummeted. Indeed, biotech companies are increasingly asked by investors more interested in selling a full and unencumbered pipeline to a big pharma company to justify the need for an early- or mid-stage deal. With this greater scrutiny comes the expectation of greater rewards, especially in upfront cash on the table, which can be deployed to ripen the other pipeline assets for an eventual sale. For Pharma, the new pressure on biotechs to re-think what were previously almost automatic partnering decisions means a reduction in the already depleted list of mid- and late-stage development compounds available for in-licensing. With deal prices climbing to previously unknown heights, even for Phase I and pre-clinical opportunities, single-product licensing discussions are now often precursors of M&A. Increasingly, L&BD (Licensing & Business Development) professionals will be called upon to evaluate high ticket purchases that involve consideration of multiple therapeutic areas. © 2006 Defined Health |
||||||||||||
| Copyright© 2007 Licensing
Executives Society (U.S.A. and Canada), Inc. |
|||||||||||||
Chemicals, Energy and Materials Sector
