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

Joel Lexchin joel.lexchin at utoronto.ca
Fri Nov 14 14:49:33 PST 2014


$2.47 billion

Joel Lexchin MD
School of Health Policy & Management 
York University
Toronto Ontario
Canada

> On Nov 14, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Michael H Davis <m.davis at csuohio.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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