[Ip-health] Ip-health Digest, Vol 55, Issue 12

Michael H Davis m.davis at csuohio.edu
Fri Nov 14 13:16:49 PST 2014


Okay I vote $2.12 billion. Per pill.


_______________________________________


Prof. Mickey Davis
216/687-2228(phone)
917/771-0235 (cell)

Mailing Address:
Cleveland State University
2121 Euclid Avenue, LB 234
Cleveland, OH 44115-2214

Campus Location:
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
1801 Euclid Avenue
Law Building, LB 234

Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 45,863


-------- Original message --------
From: Claire Cassedy <ccassedy2 at gmail.com>
Date:11/14/2014 4:02 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: ip-health at lists.keionline.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Ip-health] Ip-health Digest, Vol 55, Issue 12

My vote is for $2.2 billion.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:00 PM, <ip-health-request at lists.keionline.org>
wrote:

> Send Ip-health mailing list submissions to
>         ip-health at lists.keionline.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         ip-health-request at lists.keionline.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         ip-health-owner at lists.keionline.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ip-health digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Times of India: US patent lobby to meet Indian judiciary,
>       patent officials: Conflict of interest? (Thiru Balasubramaniam)
>    2. Daily Maverick Op-Ed: Academics for TAC (Lotti Rutter)
>    3. Program of 1st CII-DIPP-IPO International Conference on
>       Intellectual Property Law & Enforcement of IPR (Thiru
> Balasubramaniam)
>    4. New Tufts study on R&D costs (Jamie Love)
>    5. Re: New Tufts study on R&D costs (Gaelle Krikorian)
>    6. Re: New Tufts study on R&D costs (Michael H Davis)
>    7. The Economist: Invent it, swap it or buy it
>       (Thiru Balasubramaniam)
>    8. Re: New Tufts study on R&D costs (Aidan Hollis)
>    9. Re: New Tufts study on R&D costs (Robert Weissman)
>   10. Re: New Tufts study on R&D costs (Outterson, Kevin)
>   11. Re: New Tufts study on R&D costs (Manon Ress)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:04:15 +0100
> From: Thiru Balasubramaniam <thiru at keionline.org>
> To: "ip-health at lists.keionline.org" <Ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: [Ip-health] Times of India: US patent lobby to meet Indian
>         judiciary, patent officials: Conflict of interest?
> Message-ID:
>         <CANi=seLX=
> jf6kiZzdW1-xW0Ajg2byAAjH5pCytaoGFw6ws+7Sg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-patent-lobby-to-meet-Indian-judiciary-patent-officials-Conflict-of-interest/articleshow/45132071.cms
>
> US patent lobby to meet Indian judiciary, patent officials: Conflict of
> interest?Rema Nagarajan,TNN | Nov 13, 2014, 11.40 AM IST
>
> NEW DELHI : In a glaring instance of conflict of interest many
> pharmaceutical MNC representatives from the US will be meeting members of
> judicial tribunals and higher judiciary and officers who are dealing with
> intellectual property (IP) cases of these companies on a visit to India
> next week. A delegation from US-based Intellectual Property Owners'
> Association (IPOA) comprising pharmaceutical MNCs among others, many of
> whom have intellectual property or patent dispute cases filed against the
> Indian government and Indian pharma companies will be visiting India from
> November 16-21.
>
> The delegation plans to meet and interact with intellectual property office
> (IPO) officials, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) members,
> judiciary and judicial staff of high courts and the Supreme Court justices,
> or in short, all those who can influence or who have a bearing on the cases
> they are fighting in India. Civil society has expressed concern about these
> industry representatives being given access to IPAB and IPO in Chennai and
> Delhi and the judiciary.
>
> "The intellectual Property Office is a quasi judicial body which conducts
> hearings and takes decisions on whether to grant a patent or not. Most
> dangerous is their visit to IPAB, which is a judicial tribunal and decides
> the appeals coming out of the decisions of the patent office. Many
> delegates' companies have filed appeals too. Interested parties being
> allowed to approach them directly is against the interest of justice and
> raises serious questions of conflict of interest," said K M Gopakumar of
> Third World Network. For instance, Roche, an IPOA member, has its case is
> in Delhi high court, so how can they visit Delhi high court and meet the
> judges or staff, he asked.
>
> IPOA is a trade association representing companies and individuals in all
> industries and fields of technology who own or are interested in
> intellectual property rights and it represents a substantial number of
> patent applications filed not only in the US but also in the Indian Patent
> Office. According to the IPOA website its mission is to serve the global
> intellectual property community. IPOA describes the India visit as "a
> unique opportunity to share experiences and perspectives with patent
> practitioners and the judiciary of India on intellectual property
> practice".
>
> This is not the first time that IPOA and the US industry, especially
> pharma, has tried to influence the way India's patent offices and judiciary
> interpret India's patent law, hailed as one of the most progressive when it
> comes to balancing public interests with patent protection.
>
> In 2011, Justice Dalveer Bhandari had been forced to recuse from hearing a
> case regarding the patentability of Novartis' anti-cancer drug Glivec after
> health activists protested saying he had participated in at least two
> international conferences for judges, one in 2007 in Washington and another
> in 2011 in Brussels, organized by IPOA, whose members include Novartis,
> among a host of pharmaceutical and IT giants.
>
> In 2010, a judges' roundtable on intellectual rights property adjudication
> was jointly organised by Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and
> Industry (FICCI) and Maharashtra State Judicial Academy. Health rights
> activists protested pointing out that FICCI and Confederation of Industry
> (CII) are primarily industry associations known for lobbying to protect
> industry interests, including strong IP protection. These meetings and
> conferences disguised as harmless educational events, have been criticised
> for giving a skewed view on IP protection conveying only the industry's
> views and interests without anyone to represent public interest, in a bid
> to influence judges and law and policy makers dealing with intellectual
> property cases.
>
> Though India complied with its World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement to
> introduce patents protection for 20 years on medicines, since India
> produces life-saving generic medicines for its own people and the entire
> developing world, Parliament included several health safeguards in the law,
> including provisions like section 3(d) to prevent companies from seeking
> patent extensions by tweaking existing drugs. Many IPOA member-companies
> have constantly challenged these safeguards by filing cases against the
> government. Till now, the Indian judiciary and patent offices have, by and
> large, upheld the public health safeguards in the Indian patent law.
>
> The progressive judgements that have tried to balance public interest and
> access to medicines with the private interest of patent holders has been a
> cause of much unhappiness among US MNCs especially the pharmaceutical
> companies who have been focusing on judicial training, training of patent
> office ad drug control officials in a bid to influence how they deal with
> patent applications. Against this backdrop, the impending visit of the IPOA
> delegation and their access to judiciary and patent officials has become a
> matter of concern among public health activists.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:58:21 +0200
> From: Lotti Rutter <lotti.rutter at mail.tac.org.za>
> To: ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> Subject: [Ip-health] Daily Maverick Op-Ed: Academics for TAC
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CADrs-tyRiJduJEiaiDZstKEAQ_o7Rqe-p2kC43GGYVvsdE_xog at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-11-14-op-ed-academics-for-tac/#.VGWLW_SUfd4
>
> Op-Ed: Academics for TAC
>
> South Africans have many people to thank for their scaled-up ability to
> access free antiretroviral treatment. Foremost among them is the Treatment
> Action Campaign, which has fought tirelessly for over a decade and a half
> to ensure that HIV-positive people in poor countries receive the same
> standard of treatment and care as those in the developed world. By
> PROFESSOR BROOK K BAKER and PROFESSOR YOUSUF VAWDA.
>
> For legal academics who want to support social movements pursuing
> rights-based global health justice and a scaled-up up response to the
> global HIV/Aids pandemic, there has been no organisation more instrumental
> to those goals than the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC). From organising
> the march for universal access to treatment at the 2000 International Aids
> Conference in Durban, to the 2000-2001 resistance to drug companies'
> attacks on South Africa's Medicines and Related Substances Control Act
> designed to ease access to more affordable medicines, to successful
> litigation in the Constitutional Court demanding that the denialist
> government expand its prevention-of-mother-to-child transmission programme,
> to the Competition Commission cases seeking lower prices on medicines and
> generic licences, and to demands that the government roll out a
> comprehensive strategy for treating and preventing HIV, TAC has made
> demands on powerful industries and a reluctant government to ensure that
> South Africa deploys all available tools to address the HIV/Aids crisis
> that threatened its post-apartheid transformation.
>
> We have been fortunate to have been involved with TAC in some of its
> campaigns, including the birth of its current, bold Fix the Patent Laws
> campaign that we helped to support in an IP and Access to Medicines course
> we have taught at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. We have watched it grow
> locally and connect regionally and internationally with other Aids activist
> organisations to weave a web of global actors campaigning for donor
> commitments and fully-capacitated national responses to an HIV/Aids crisis
> ignored in the 1990s while the viral plague multiplied, needlessly
> infecting and killing millions of Africans. In the 2000s we watched TAC
> wage strategic battles in court, in Parliament, and before administrative
> agencies at the same time that it empowered grassroots activities and
> communities through treatment literacy and co-ordinated campaigns for
> quality service provision.
>
> Far from being a merely populist organisation, a hallmark of the work that
> TAC has been doing is its rigorous and evidence-based approach to the
> challenges presented by the HIV/Aids pandemic.
>
> TAC alerted a global movement to the rapacious profiteering of
> multinational pharmaceutical companies that would rather make excessive
> profits off high-price sales to the rich than deliver life-saving
> antiretroviral medicines to the poor. It pointed attention at the malign
> influence of the US and European governments attempts to extend
> pharmaceutical hegemony at the same time that they squeezed the coffers of
> global health aid. But perhaps most inspirationally, we watched TAC change
> a government's policy and a population's ambition to beat back the scourge
> of HIV and to build a health system and vibrant civil society that could
> deliver the health rights that South Africans fought so hard to achieve.
>
> TAC is facing a financial crisis that is not of its own doing but
> precipitated by shortsighted and narrow-minded donors who think that a job
> half-done is good enough. Nearly 3.5 million people living with HIV in
> South Africa are still waiting in line for life saving treatment. Poor
> service delivery, violence against women, and stigma and discrimination
> still slow the national response. Bureaucrats dawdle and political elites
> focus on their own machinations unless powerful social movements like those
> led by TAC can continue to wage smart strategic campaigns to go all the way
> to secure human rights and meet health needs.
>
> We urge other academics, in South Africa and globally, to support the
> Treatment Action Campaign and its vital work with both your financial and
> intellectual assets. The TAC is the heart of the international Aids
> movement ? we cannot sit by and let that heartbeat still. *DM*
>
> *Professor Brook K Baker, from the Northeastern U. School of Law, is an
> Honorary Research Fellow University of KwaZulu-Natal. Professor Yousuf
> Vawda is head of Public Law, School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal.*
>
>
> --
> *Lotti Rutter*
> Senior Researcher
> Policy, Communications and Research
>
> Treatment Action Campaign
> Tel: 021 422 1700
> Cell: 081 818 8493
> Skype: lotti.rutter
> Twitter: @TAC @FixPatentLaw @lottirutter
>
> *www.tac.org.za* <http://www.tac.org.za/>
> <http://www.tac.org.za/donate>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:49:16 +0100
> From: Thiru Balasubramaniam <thiru at keionline.org>
> To: "ip-health at lists.keionline.org" <Ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: [Ip-health] Program of 1st CII-DIPP-IPO International
>         Conference on Intellectual Property Law & Enforcement of IPR
> Message-ID:
>         <CANi=seKCYgr0=RZxmf3s9yhugy1M+h7WMm-kRbg1t=
> GGA0xObw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> The program of the CII-DIPP-IPO Conference can be found here:
> http://ciiknowledgexpo.in/document/4.pdf
>
>
> http://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/cii-dipp-ipo-international-conference-on-intellectual-property-law-enforcement-of-iprs-20-22-nov-2014/
>
> CII-DIPP-IPO Conference on IP Law & Enforcement ignores Public Interest
> <
> http://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/cii-dipp-ipo-international-conference-on-intellectual-property-law-enforcement-of-iprs-20-22-nov-2014/
> >
> Posted on November 14, 2014
> <
> http://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/cii-dipp-ipo-international-conference-on-intellectual-property-law-enforcement-of-iprs-20-22-nov-2014/
> >
> by donttradeourlivesaway
> <http://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/author/donttradeourlivesaway/>
>
> Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce,
> India along with Confederation of Indian Industries and Intellectual
> Property India (IPO) is holding an international conference on ?IP Law and
> Enforcement?  in Noida, 20-21 Nov 2014. Access the agenda of the conference
> here <http://ciiknowledgexpo.in/document/4.pdf>.
>
> This conference raises concerns on IP and public interest as well as a
> Government of India?s established stand of balanced approach to
> intellectual protection and enforcement. Government of India in all
> international and domestic forum has always taken a firm stand to balance
> the IP protection and enforcement, a private interest with the public
> interest i.e. access to medicines, access to knowledge, access to
> technology etc. The conference is a clear departure from this stand and the
> agenda is completely IP Maximalist. The agenda seem to accommodate only
> corporations and law firms and have excluded academia and civil society
> organisations.
>
> It will actually serve as a platform for US government and the US based
> corporations to lobby with the Indian policy makers and IP office. For
> instance, Pratibha Singh, a Member of the IP think Tank is chairing a
> session in the conference. The IP think tank recently formed by Ministry of
> Commerce & Industry and has been entrusted with the task of framing India?s
> national IP policy and even to look at the anomalies in the existing IP
> law.
>
> We have heard that CII is a cosponsor of the Intellectual Property Owner?s
> Association?s (IPOA) controversial visit to India and the CII-DIPP-
> Conference is linked to the IPOA Delegation visit to India. This IP lobby
> delegation is visiting Intellectual Property Offices (IPO) in Chennai and
> Delhi, Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal (IPAB) and High Court of
> Delhi which raises serious concerns of ethics and conflict of interest. The
> agenda of their visit can be accessed here
> <
> http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DraftAgendaIndiaTrip_111314.pdf
> >
> .
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:35:21 -0500
> From: Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org>
> To: Ip-health <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: [Ip-health] New Tufts study on R&D costs
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+aiKTSewrsX6TwXF7V6501mOiTA8x+KS4hSa9UfwtmgZdCmxA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Next week, a new version of the Tufts study on R&D costs will be released.
>
> KEI will give $50 to the person who comes the closed in predicting the new
> figure for the cost of R&D for the lead indication of a new chemical
> entity.
>
> An abstract of the earlier 2003 study,"The price of innovation: new
> estimates of drug development costs" is available here:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606142
>
>
> The 2003 study put the number at $802 million (not $800 million, but $802
> million), in 2000 dollars.
>
> As I said, $50 for the closest estimate, published on IP-Health, before the
> new number is announced (or leaked).
>
> Jamie
>
> --
> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org/donate.html
> KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile:
> +41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:41:25 +0100
> From: Gaelle Krikorian <gaelle.krikorian at gmail.com>
> To: ip-health <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ip-health] New Tufts study on R&D costs
> Message-ID: <96357E47-7385-42EE-9A67-8A99CACEDA34 at free.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Hi,
>
> I bet $1,705 billion. They have at least to double the figure?
>
> Gaelle
>
>
>
>
> Le 14 nov. 2014 ? 18:35, Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> a ?crit :
>
> > Next week, a new version of the Tufts study on R&D costs will be
> released.
> >
> > KEI will give $50 to the person who comes the closed in predicting the
> new
> > figure for the cost of R&D for the lead indication of a new chemical
> entity.
> >
> > An abstract of the earlier 2003 study,"The price of innovation: new
> > estimates of drug development costs" is available here:
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606142
> >
> >
> > The 2003 study put the number at $802 million (not $800 million, but $802
> > million), in 2000 dollars.
> >
> > As I said, $50 for the closest estimate, published on IP-Health, before
> the
> > new number is announced (or leaked).
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> > --
> > James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> > http://www.keionline.org/donate.html
> > KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile:
> > +41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ip-health mailing list
> > Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> >
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
> ----------------------
> Gaelle Krikorian
> galk at free.fr
>
> Tel +33 (0)6 09 17 70 55
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:47:09 +0000
> From: Michael H Davis <m.davis at csuohio.edu>
> To: Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org>, Ip-health
>         <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ip-health] New Tufts study on R&D costs
> Message-ID: <7y3ruu9e70o6vxyni0s28bdd.1415987221225 at email.android.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The Tufts "study" is one of the longest running scams in health IP. I have
> talked to these guys and they've told me they trust the drug companies to
> be honest. There's no way to the truth when you start there.
>
> Jamie, it'll be higher, even though there's less new drugs. Why? Well if
> your auditors say they trust you, wouldn't you give them higher numbers?
> This "study" doesn't merit publication.
>
>
> _______________________________________
>
>
> Prof. Mickey Davis
> 216/687-2228(phone)
> 917/771-0235 (cell)
>
> Mailing Address:
> Cleveland State University
> 2121 Euclid Avenue, LB 234
> Cleveland, OH 44115-2214
>
> Campus Location:
> Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
> 1801 Euclid Avenue
> Law Building, LB 234
>
> Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
> Reg. No. 45,863
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org>
> Date:11/14/2014 12:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Ip-health <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Cc:
> Subject: [Ip-health] New Tufts study on R&D costs
>
> Next week, a new version of the Tufts study on R&D costs will be released.
>
> KEI will give $50 to the person who comes the closed in predicting the new
> figure for the cost of R&D for the lead indication of a new chemical
> entity.
>
> An abstract of the earlier 2003 study,"The price of innovation: new
> estimates of drug development costs" is available here:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606142
>
>
> The 2003 study put the number at $802 million (not $800 million, but $802
> million), in 2000 dollars.
>
> As I said, $50 for the closest estimate, published on IP-Health, before the
> new number is announced (or leaked).
>
> Jamie
>
> --
> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org/donate.html
> KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile:
> +41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:53:15 +0100
> From: Thiru Balasubramaniam <thiru at keionline.org>
> To: "ip-health at lists.keionline.org" <Ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: [Ip-health] The Economist: Invent it, swap it or buy it
> Message-ID:
>         <CANi=se+vk_9d5swvZ-iE8xicOmJ7CdsJSK+=
> H3EXPkFgyqTL5A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> http://www.economist.com/news/business/21632676-why-constant-dealmaking-among-drugmakers-inevitable-invent-it-swap-it-or-buy-it
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Besides asset-swapping with another big firm, the other obvious way for a
> drugmaker to build on its areas of strength is to buy small, innovative
> companies. For instance, in June Merck said it would buy Idenix, a
> biotechnology firm, for $3.9 billion, to bolster its research pipeline for
> hepatitis treatments. One of Merck?s main rivals in this area, Gilead, had
> paid $11 billion for a smallish company, Pharmasset, in 2012. For some
> years now, big drugmakers have been disappointed by the performance of
> their in-house labs, and have increasingly looked outside for small firms
> with promising ideas. Nils Behnke, a partner at Bain, says that over the
> period covered by its study, the best-performing drug companies got more
> than 70% of their revenues from products that were not developed in-house.
>
> The smaller, younger drug firms being bought in such deals can often be
> better than the pharma giants at thinking up new ways to attack a disease.
> But they typically lack the expertise to organise clinical trials, deal
> with regulators and get a drug successfully to market. These are the
> strengths of the big pharma firms. So combining the two sets of skills
> makes sense.
>
> --
> Pharmaceutical M&AInvent it, swap it or buy itWhy constant dealmaking among
> drugmakers is inevitable
>
>
>
> Nov 15th 2014 | From the print edition
> <http://www.economist.com/printedition/2014-11-15>
>
>
> FEW industries have been shaped more by mergers and takeovers than
> pharmaceuticals. This is because developing drugs is such a high-risk
> business. Most potential medicines either fail to reach the market, or fail
> thereafter to recoup the cost of developing them. If a company does not
> have enough promising drugs in its research pipeline, its most obvious
> route to growth is to buy another firm. So, many of the world?s biggest
> drugmakers, such as Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), have been
> built through a succession of deals.
>
> However, something has changed in the nature of drug firms? dealmaking over
> the years. It used to be all about achieving sheer scale, and building a
> broad portfolio of potential treatments for a range of illnesses. Now it is
> increasingly about drug companies concentrating on what they do best, and
> getting out of areas in which they are weak. There is evidence that this is
> a better route to success. A study by Bain & Company, a consulting firm, of
> the most successful pharma companies over the past 20 years found that the
> top ten, in terms of shareholder returns, all to some degree used mergers
> and acquisitions to build strengths in a select number of areas.
>
>    -
>
> In the M&A wave that has risen since the end of the financial crisis, this
> trend has been clearer. The most notable recent example is GSK?s agreement
> with Novartis to swap assets so that GSK strengthens its lead in vaccines
> and Novartis fortifies its position in cancer drugs. Last month Bayer, a
> firm that made its name selling aspirins, bought the over-the-counter
> medicines business of Merck, which includes such remedies as Claritin
> allergy pills.
>
> Besides asset-swapping with another big firm, the other obvious way for a
> drugmaker to build on its areas of strength is to buy small, innovative
> companies. For instance, in June Merck said it would buy Idenix, a
> biotechnology firm, for $3.9 billion, to bolster its research pipeline for
> hepatitis treatments. One of Merck?s main rivals in this area, Gilead, had
> paid $11 billion for a smallish company, Pharmasset, in 2012. For some
> years now, big drugmakers have been disappointed by the performance of
> their in-house labs, and have increasingly looked outside for small firms
> with promising ideas. Nils Behnke, a partner at Bain, says that over the
> period covered by its study, the best-performing drug companies got more
> than 70% of their revenues from products that were not developed in-house.
>
> The smaller, younger drug firms being bought in such deals can often be
> better than the pharma giants at thinking up new ways to attack a disease.
> But they typically lack the expertise to organise clinical trials, deal
> with regulators and get a drug successfully to market. These are the
> strengths of the big pharma firms. So combining the two sets of skills
> makes sense.
>
> Not all of the recent rash of pharmaceuticals deals, however, were driven
> by the quest for new cures for humankind?s ailments. Many have been
> motivated by a baser desire to cut tax bills. Under certain conditions an
> American firm buying a non-American one can switch its tax domicile to the
> home country of its takeover target, which is why so many drugs firms based
> in low-tax countries like Ireland have been bought up in the past few
> years.
>
> In September the US Treasury brought in new rules to make such ?inversions?
> harder. A $43 billion deal in which Medtronic, a medical-device maker,
> would buy Covidien of Ireland, will still go ahead; but the American buyer
> has been forced to raise an additional $16 billion in debt to finance the
> merger. An even bigger deal, in which AbbVie would have paid $54 billion
> for Shire, a British firm, was scrapped. AbbVie had to pay Shire a break-up
> fee of $1.6 billion, and criticised the Obama administration for the sudden
> rule-change.
>
> Another motivation for takeovers is to use them as a cover for slashing
> research costs. Much of the opposition that made Pfizer halt its $120
> billion bid for AstraZeneca, earlier this year, was because of such
> worries. About $50 billion was spent on R&D in 2013 by members of America?s
> pharmaceuticals lobby, PhRMA?as a proportion of their combined sales this
> was a whopping 17.8%. Similar figures are found in Europe and Japan. Some
> in Wall Street see pharma research as value-destroying and an obvious
> target for cuts.
>
> Valeant, a Canadian drugs firm, has grown fast by buying other companies
> and cutting R&D spending in all but their most promising areas. It has been
> keen to apply this formula to Allergan, the maker of Botox anti-wrinkle
> treatments. But this week Allergan was said to be trying to evade Valeant?s
> clutches by agreeing to a bid from Actavis for around $60 billion.
>
> Mergers rarely produce significant advances in innovation or research
> productivity, or so work by Carmine Ornaghi of the University of
> Southampton in England suggests. That gives Cassandras grounds for worrying
> that the current deals portend an innovation-free future. Optimists will
> counter that innovation is poised to flourish, as scientists with good
> ideas create startups, encouraged by the prospect of a lucrative buy-out by
> a larger firm.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:57:50 -0700
> From: Aidan Hollis <ahollis at ucalgary.ca>
> To: "ip-health at lists.keionline.org listserve"
>         <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ip-health] New Tufts study on R&D costs
> Message-ID: <ADC2A133-EF0A-4BC7-9CED-E5D0AF908378 at ucalgary.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Biologics are already in the $1.7bn range. So given that they will be
> using data from a very low productivity period, when new approvals were
> dragging and budgets were relatively high, I predict precisely $2.17bn
>
> Current FDA approvals are sharply up, but I guess the most recent years?
> data will not be included.
>
> Aidan Hollis
> Professor of Economics
> University of Calgary
> ahollis at ucalgary.ca <mailto:ahollis at ucalgary.ca>
> +1 403 220 5861
>
> http://econ.ucalgary.ca/profiles/aidan-hollis <
> http://econ.ucalgary.ca/hollis.htm>
>
> Incentives for Global Health
> http://www.healthimpactfund.org <http://www.healthimpactfund.org/>
> On Nov 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Gaelle Krikorian <gaelle.krikorian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I bet $1,705 billion. They have at least to double the figure?
>
> Gaelle
>
>
>
>
> Le 14 nov. 2014 ? 18:35, Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> a ?crit :
>
> > Next week, a new version of the Tufts study on R&D costs will be
> released.
> >
> > KEI will give $50 to the person who comes the closed in predicting the
> new
> > figure for the cost of R&D for the lead indication of a new chemical
> entity.
> >
> > An abstract of the earlier 2003 study,"The price of innovation: new
> > estimates of drug development costs" is available here:
> >
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606142
> >
> >
> > The 2003 study put the number at $802 million (not $800 million, but $802
> > million), in 2000 dollars.
> >
> > As I said, $50 for the closest estimate, published on IP-Health, before
> the
> > new number is announced (or leaked).
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> > --
> > James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> > http://www.keionline.org/donate.html
> > KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile:
> > +41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ip-health mailing list
> > Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> >
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
> ----------------------
> Gaelle Krikorian
> galk at free.fr
>
> Tel +33 (0)6 09 17 70 55
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:01:57 +0000
> From: Robert Weissman <rweissman at citizen.org>
> To: Ip-health <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ip-health] New Tufts study on R&D costs
> Message-ID:
>         <
> 9021D6FCBD8A6B4E822710CADA3211C612A085 at DAGN15c-e6.exg6.exghost.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> $1.826 billion.
>
> Actually, $1.826748 billion.
>
>
> Robert Weissman
> President
> Public Citizen
> 1600 20th St., NW
> Washington, DC 20009
> Tel: 202-588-1000 | Email: rweissman at citizen.org
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ip-health [mailto:ip-health-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf
> Of Jamie Love
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 12:35 PM
> To: Ip-health
> Subject: [Ip-health] New Tufts study on R&D costs
>
> Next week, a new version of the Tufts study on R&D costs will be released.
>
> KEI will give $50 to the person who comes the closed in predicting the new
> figure for the cost of R&D for the lead indication of a new chemical entity.
>
> An abstract of the earlier 2003 study,"The price of innovation: new
> estimates of drug development costs" is available here:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606142
>
>
> The 2003 study put the number at $802 million (not $800 million, but $802
> million), in 2000 dollars.
>
> As I said, $50 for the closest estimate, published on IP-Health, before
> the new number is announced (or leaked).
>
> Jamie
>
> --
> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org/donate.html
> KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile:
> +41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 18:25:24 +0000
> From: "Outterson, Kevin" <mko at bu.edu>
> To: "ip-health at lists.keionline.org listserve"
>         <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ip-health] New Tufts study on R&D costs
> Message-ID: <8D049E87-C90D-4CA4-954E-E161DAECEE25 at bu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> $2.44 billion per NME
>
> Assume a 10 year lag; 2003 global pharma R&D spending was self reported at
> 52.3 billion; 2013 NME FDA approvals = 27.  1.93 billion; inflating for CPI
> = $2.44 billion.  Estimate ignores BLAs, non-NMEs, approvals outside US,
> actual company discount rate (much higher than CPI), R&D spending is
> self-reported, and the fact that most 2003 R&D did not relate to the drugs
> actually approved in 2013. #justforfun
>
> Kevin Outterson
> ___________________
> Professor of Law & N. Neal Pike Scholar in Health and Disability Law -
> Boston University
> Associate Fellow, Chatham House
> Editor in Chief, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
> Blogging health law at The Incidental Economist
> Research papers at SSRN & Google Scholar
> @koutterson  |  617 935 6517
>
> On Nov 14, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Aidan Hollis <ahollis at ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
> > Biologics are already in the $1.7bn range. So given that they will be
> using data from a very low productivity period, when new approvals were
> dragging and budgets were relatively high, I predict precisely $2.17bn
> >
> > Current FDA approvals are sharply up, but I guess the most recent years?
> data will not be included.
> >
> > Aidan Hollis
> > Professor of Economics
> > University of Calgary
> > ahollis at ucalgary.ca <mailto:ahollis at ucalgary.ca>
> > +1 403 220 5861
> >
> > http://econ.ucalgary.ca/profiles/aidan-hollis <
> http://econ.ucalgary.ca/hollis.htm>
> >
> > Incentives for Global Health
> > http://www.healthimpactfund.org <http://www.healthimpactfund.org/>
> > On Nov 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Gaelle Krikorian <
> gaelle.krikorian at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I bet $1,705 billion. They have at least to double the figure?
> >
> > Gaelle
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 14 nov. 2014 ? 18:35, Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> a ?crit :
> >
> >> Next week, a new version of the Tufts study on R&D costs will be
> released.
> >>
> >> KEI will give $50 to the person who comes the closed in predicting the
> new
> >> figure for the cost of R&D for the lead indication of a new chemical
> entity.
> >>
> >> An abstract of the earlier 2003 study,"The price of innovation: new
> >> estimates of drug development costs" is available here:
> >>
> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606142
> >>
> >>
> >> The 2003 study put the number at $802 million (not $800 million, but
> $802
> >> million), in 2000 dollars.
> >>
> >> As I said, $50 for the closest estimate, published on IP-Health, before
> the
> >> new number is announced (or leaked).
> >>
> >> Jamie
> >>
> >> --
> >> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> >> http://www.keionline.org/donate.html
> >> KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile:
> >> +41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ip-health mailing list
> >> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> >>
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Gaelle Krikorian
> > galk at free.fr
> >
> > Tel +33 (0)6 09 17 70 55
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ip-health mailing list
> > Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> >
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ip-health mailing list
> > Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> >
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:34:19 -0500
> From: Manon Ress <manon.ress at keionline.org>
> To: ip-health <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ip-health] New Tufts study on R&D costs
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAJ4KiVu+9+wSQVEe6ZiQ_KGJhAYT84YXS8nQj_EC2mD3DeifXw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I bet 2.355 Billion  (increase of 8% each year).
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Outterson, Kevin <mko at bu.edu> wrote:
>
> > $2.44 billion per NME
> >
> > Assume a 10 year lag; 2003 global pharma R&D spending was self reported
> at
> > 52.3 billion; 2013 NME FDA approvals = 27.  1.93 billion; inflating for
> CPI
> > = $2.44 billion.  Estimate ignores BLAs, non-NMEs, approvals outside US,
> > actual company discount rate (much higher than CPI), R&D spending is
> > self-reported, and the fact that most 2003 R&D did not relate to the
> drugs
> > actually approved in 2013. #justforfun
> >
> > Kevin Outterson
> > ___________________
> > Professor of Law & N. Neal Pike Scholar in Health and Disability Law -
> > Boston University
> > Associate Fellow, Chatham House
> > Editor in Chief, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
> > Blogging health law at The Incidental Economist
> > Research papers at SSRN & Google Scholar
> > @koutterson  |  617 935 6517
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Aidan Hollis <ahollis at ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Biologics are already in the $1.7bn range. So given that they will be
> > using data from a very low productivity period, when new approvals were
> > dragging and budgets were relatively high, I predict precisely $2.17bn
> > >
> > > Current FDA approvals are sharply up, but I guess the most recent
> years'
> > data will not be included.
> > >
> > > Aidan Hollis
> > > Professor of Economics
> > > University of Calgary
> > > ahollis at ucalgary.ca <mailto:ahollis at ucalgary.ca>
> > > +1 403 220 5861
> > >
> > > http://econ.ucalgary.ca/profiles/aidan-hollis <
> > http://econ.ucalgary.ca/hollis.htm>
> > >
> > > Incentives for Global Health
> > > http://www.healthimpactfund.org <http://www.healthimpactfund.org/>
> > > On Nov 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Gaelle Krikorian <
> > gaelle.krikorian at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I bet $1,705 billion. They have at least to double the figure...
> > >
> > > Gaelle
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le 14 nov. 2014 ? 18:35, Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> a
> ?crit :
> > >
> > >> Next week, a new version of the Tufts study on R&D costs will be
> > released.
> > >>
> > >> KEI will give $50 to the person who comes the closed in predicting the
> > new
> > >> figure for the cost of R&D for the lead indication of a new chemical
> > entity.
> > >>
> > >> An abstract of the earlier 2003 study,"The price of innovation: new
> > >> estimates of drug development costs" is available here:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606142
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The 2003 study put the number at $802 million (not $800 million, but
> > $802
> > >> million), in 2000 dollars.
> > >>
> > >> As I said, $50 for the closest estimate, published on IP-Health,
> before
> > the
> > >> new number is announced (or leaked).
> > >>
> > >> Jamie
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> > >> http://www.keionline.org/donate.html
> > >> KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva
> Mobile:
> > >> +41.76.413.6584, twitter.com/jamie_love
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Ip-health mailing list
> > >> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> > >>
> >
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> > >
> > > ----------------------
> > > Gaelle Krikorian
> > > galk at free.fr
> > >
> > > Tel +33 (0)6 09 17 70 55
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ip-health mailing list
> > > Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> > >
> >
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ip-health mailing list
> > > Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> > >
> >
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ip-health mailing list
> > Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> >
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Manon Ress, Ph.D.
> Knowledge Ecology International, KEI
> manon.ress at keionline.org, tel.: +1 202 332 2670
> www.keionline.org<http://www.keionline.org>
> KEI needs your support. Donations to KEI are tax deductible, under
> 501(c)(3) of the US IRS code. To donate to KEI, you can use paypal or a
> credit card:  http://keionline.org/donate.html
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Ip-health Digest, Vol 55, Issue 12
> *****************************************
>
_______________________________________________
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org



More information about the Ip-health mailing list