Post imported by Google+Blog for WordPress.
"[…] looking at the five-year period up to 2008 and the subsequent five years ending in 2013, […] R&D funding for novel diabetes drugs fell 81 percent between the two five-year periods, psychiatric drug funding dropped 56 percent, cash for gastrointestinal therapies tumbled 49 percent, respiratory drug funding shrank 41 percent and cardiovascular drug dollars slid 32 percent lower."
"At the same time, money raised by companies working on new types of previously approved pain drugs increased three-fold."
From the http://ow.ly/JPcmt:
How funding is coming up short on new drugs for these diseases – San Francisco Business Times
A new white paper from the Biotechnology Industry Organization shows a bleak long-term picture for biotech drug developers trying to capture money for novel drugs in a number of disease areas.
Bruce Booth highlights the key points of this report, in a Forbes article (http://ow.ly/IP92z), as follows:
"First, over the past decade, nearly 80% of venture capital for therapeutics went toward “novel drug R&D” rather than improvements on existing drugs."
"Second, initial rounds of funding (Series As) for novel drug R&D reached their highest levels in a decade in 2013."
"Third, most of the Series A funding of new startups has gone toward early stage assets (drug discovery, preclinical, and Phase 1), and this has increased over the past five years."
"Fourth, these data highlight that the pace of startup creation hasn’t changed in the past five years."
You can read the Forbes article to get more details regarding each of the points highlighted or read the report itself to get more detailed information.
From http://ow.ly/IP92z :
Where Does All That Biotech Venture Capital Go?
Venture capital investing in biotech has long been hard to disaggregate: how much goes to “early stage” vs “late stage”, how much goes to CNS vs oncology, discovery vs Phase 3, etc… Today BIO’s David Thomas and Chad Wessel have put some much-needed light onto the biotech investor trends over the […]
"But China, both in its ascension to the World Trade Organization and in subsequent years, has increasingly empowered copyright holders to fight infringers. It is setting up a specialized intellectual property court to adjudicate patent, trademark and other matters. Pressure from wealthier Chinese consumers has also led to the creation of large online shopping malls dedicated to selling legitimate goods. There are, in other words, both ways to fight piracy and ways to sell legitimate goods. But doing so requires entrepreneurs to think of China early in their process, perhaps filing the necessary patent paperwork overseas […]"
"'It’s not overly expensive – you can get lawyers that do it for a fraction of a cost it costs you to patent in places like Canada or the U.S.,' said Mark Tanner, founder of Shanghai-based marketing and research agency China Skinny."
"Using that patent to fight a copycatter can still be tough, of course. But without it, the process is far more difficult."
Fighting China’s copycatters: Canadian learns valuable lesson the hard way
Ryann Aoukar discovers the best defence is typically a good offence and that patents are imperative to protect your products
“'We knew that we had a lot of students who were not sharing their innovations on the campus and not starting their companies in the light of day on campus because they were afraid they were going to lose their intellectual property to the university,' (Dan) Hasler (president and chief entrepreneurial officer of Purdue Research Foundation) says. 'They would graduate, move to another state, and start their business. We gained nothing and the student wasn’t able to take advantage of all the help we can offer.'"
"As at many universities, Purdue University’s policy on student IP is broadly stated and enveloped students even if was never intended to, Hasler says. The policy says any invention created with the use of Purdue resources is subject to university ownership. Until recently that was interpreted to include student IP as well, but not because anyone had addressed the matter seriously. As student entrepreneurship has skyrocketed, however, it became a more critical issue to address."
"The school’s new interpretation offers students clear ownership rights as long as the resources used were part of a course and were available to all students in the course; that the student was not paid by the university or a third party; and the class or project was not supported by a corporation or government grant or contract."
"Commercialization efforts can be hampered by any ambiguity in the policy, notes Juan M. Sanchez, PhD, vice president for research at UT (University of Texas). A serious investor in a student’s IP will want to know with certainty that there will be no dispute about ownership, he says. Telling the investor that the university 'usually' doesn’t try to keep the IP simply isn’t good enough."
Student entrepreneurship stirs review, revision of IP ownership policies – Tech Transfer e-News – Tech Transfer Central
With more students becoming entrepreneurs and developing IP before they graduate, universities across the country are taking another look at their policies on ownership of that IP