BIO EUROPE
As Homberg points out, “there are some changes in the market that have been triggered by pressure on big pharma – there’s a relatively small new product pipeline, expiring patents for “Block Buster Terapeutics”, and new issues with respect to reimbursement. Tere’s also pressure on the regulatory side.” Big pharmaceutical companies, he says, have reacted quite naturally to these pressures.
Tere have been significant changes in the licensing and M&A environment as a result. “Big pharma wants to in-license new products, even pre-clinical products, in a way that they wouldn’t have done before,” Homberg says. Tis sounds like good news for small biotech companies, which might reasonably expect earlier investment in unproven products if the trend continues. But, he adds, earlier interest from big pharmaceutical companies doesn’t necessarily translate into a better environment for small companies. “Tere is a consequence on how they structure their contractual documentation for deals,” he says. “Tere are more agreements that allow big companies to get out of them quickly. Tey would like to reserve broad rights for termination [of a licensing agreement], including not just failure of technology, but even things like a change of business focus.”
governing what happens to licensing agreement when the licensor goes bankrupt.
“EARLIER INTEREST FROM BIG
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES DOESN’T NECESSARILY TRANSLATE INTO A BETTER ENVIRONMENT FOR SMALL COMPANIES.”
This last point is especially interesting. “In Germany,” Homberg says, “the bankruptcy administrator can choose to terminate the [licensing] contract” in the event of bankruptcy, unlike in, for example, the US. This means that in Germany, there is little security for large companies entering agreements with smaller players. Some big pharmaceutical companies request IP transfer at a certain stage to head off these risks, but that has implications for the smaller company too, which is likely to be relying on its IP assets to keep shareholders on board.
Te panel will focus on these issues, and also take a look at recent developments in the law, especially the passage of the America Invents Act in the US. Additionally, it will take a look of the key cases and regulatory obstacles to development of treatment for some of the planet’s biggest killers, and the discrepancies in law in different countries
Homberg says that despite the challenging climate, there are still good opportunities for small biotech companies with good technology in particular fields, while big pharmaceuticals will probably look to diversify their offering over the next few years, perhaps to include generic or veterinary products, in order to keep pace. n
Te BIO Europe conference starts on October 31. To register, please visit
http://www.ebdgroup.com/ bioeurope/
www.worldipreview.com
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011
25
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100