Thermo Fisher to drop $1.7B on gene therapy maker Brammer Bio

Thermo Fisher (NYSE:TMO) said today that it will acquire gene and cell therapy manufacturer Brammer Bio for $1.7 billion in cash.

Brammer Bio is a viral vector contract developer and manufacturer of gene therapies and gene-modified cell therapies for biopharma customers. The Cambridge, Mass.-based business has nearly 600 employees at primary locations in Massachusetts and Alachua, Fla.

Get the full story on our sister site, Medical Design & Outsourcing.

The post Thermo Fisher to drop $1.7B on gene therapy maker Brammer Bio appeared first on MassDevice.

NE Ohio biomedical industry investments on the rise

Investment in the northeast Ohio biomedical sector totaled nearly $294 million in 2018 with 71 regional companies receiving funding, according to regional healthcare trade group BioEnterprise. Those figures make this region the third largest for total healthcare investment in the Midwest, following Minneapolis ($664 million) and Chicago ($551 million).

These were among the findings of BioEnterprise’s 2018 Midwest Healthcare Growth Capital Report, which tracks capital investments made in biomedical companies across 11 Midwestern states in three sectors — medical device; biotechnology and pharmaceuticals; and health IT/software and services. The $294 million invested in northeast Ohio is the second largest in the history of the report, and the 71 companies receiving funding is the highest ever. Northeast Ohio is also the second largest region for the number of companies funded across 11 Midwest states. Minneapolis leads with 83 companies receiving funding.

Get the full story on our sister site, Medical Design & Outsourcing.

The post NE Ohio biomedical industry investments on the rise appeared first on MassDevice.

Bruin Biometrics lands second SBIR award for ortho device

Bruin Biometrics (BBI) said it has won a $1.4 million Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase II program award from The National Institute of Arthritis and the musculoskeletal and skin division of the National Institutes of Health.

BBI (Los Angeles) uses biometric sensor technology to aid clinicians in the early detection and monitoring of chronic, preventable conditions. The award will help advance the detection capabilities, design and clinical evaluation of the company’s OrthoSonos, a novel acoustic emission device for orthopedics.

Get the full story on our sister site, Medical Design & Outsourcing.

The post Bruin Biometrics lands second SBIR award for ortho device appeared first on MassDevice.

Shire taps Rani Therapeutics’ oral delivery tech for hemophilia therapy


ShireShire (NSDQ:SHPG) said this week that it is collaborating with Rani Therapeutics to combine the company’s Rani Pill technology for the delivery of factor VIII therapy in patients with hemophilia A.

According to the terms of the deal, Shire has the exclusive option to negotiate a license to develop and commercialize the technology as a delivery mechanism for FVIII therapy after the companies conduct feasibility studies. Shire also made an equity investment into Rani Therapeutics as part of the collaboration.

Get the full story at our sister site, Drug Delivery Business News.

BIO Fall IPCC Meeting: Special Offer for First Time In-House Attendees!

Are you a patent practitioner at a biotech company?

Is your in-house IP group small, or are you perhaps the only “IP person” in your company?

Would you like more opportunities to connect with similarly-situated in-house colleagues, get updates and analysis on patent law developments, share best practices, and participate in policy discussions that affect our industry?

Have you never attended the BIO IP Counsels Committee Conference, but always wanted to?

BIO wants you, and can make it easier to attend.

BIO will waive registration and reimburse $500 in hotel and airline for up to 10 biotech in-house IP counsel first-time attendees. Recipients must have never attended a BIO IPCC Conference before.

The BIO IPCC Conference is organized biannually by the IP Counsels Committee of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. It is organized by in-house practitioners for in-house practitioners, and over the past decade has become the premiere event for corporate biotech patent counsels and agents, providing valuable opportunities for education, practice pointers, policy discussions, and for meeting similarly-situated colleagues in the industry. Registration policies and programming are designed to ensure that the event first and foremost benefits the in-house community.

Our fall conference will take place November 13-15 in Annapolis, Maryland.

We are continually seeking out ways to enhance its value to our core audience, especially practitioners at smaller companies whose budgets are tight and responsibilities are spread.

Please contact [email protected] if you believe you qualify.

Registration for BIO’s Fall IP Counsels Committee Conference is NOW OPEN!

Ah, Autumn. A time for pumpkin spice lattes, cozy sweaters, soup, and updates in the biotech patent space.

That’s right, registration for BIO’s Fall IP Counsels Committee Conference is NOW OPEN! Our Fall meeting will take place November 13-15 in Annapolis, Maryland.

Photo Credit to

BIO’s IP Counsels Committee Conference is THE place to get the most relevant information and updates on the latest issues in the biotech IP sector. Organized by in-house practitioners, it is the premiere event for corporate biotech patent counsels. We provide opportunities for education, policy discussions, networking, and offer the most up to date information in the field.

Our agenda, details for registration, and other info can be found here. 

Now grab your sailor suits and come join us!

BIO Reacts to Supreme Court opinion in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in  Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.

As mentioned in our previous post on this case, the issue before the court was whether or not 1) international sales exhausted patent rights, and 2) if conditional restrictions on the sale of the patent by the patentee exhausted patent rights.

BIO and Croplife International submitted an amicus brief supporting Lexmark International, Inc. in February.

In a 7-1 ruling authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court determined that Lexmark had exhausted its patents rights, and could not sue Impression Products for patent infringement with respect to its toner cartridges sold abroad, “because an authorized sale outside the United States, just as one within the United States, exhausts all rights under the Patent Act.”

Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

In a post for IP Watchdog, Melissa Brand, BIO’s Associate Counsel and Director, Intellectual Property Policy provided this reaction:

“The Court’s decision will change decades of established commercial practice essential to the U.S. economy.  The Court provided no analysis of whether such sweeping changes are necessary or even beneficial.  Instead, relying on theories of property rights articulated in the 17th Century—a time at which our country was burning people for witchcraft—and a superficial similarity to copyright law, the Court upends established practices, opening the floodgates of grey marketed products to the detriment of consumers in less affluent markets.

With respect to the domestic component, the Court’s decision greatly reduces the incentive for patentees to utilize conditional sales.  This penalizes manufacturers who sell products at preferential prices to special users who could not otherwise afford the product.  For example, manufacturers will have to rethink whether sales for “research use only” to universities at lower cost will continue to be commercially viable.  This could make it more difficult for the end products of such research endeavors to be made available to the public.

The consequences of the Court’s ruling on international exhaustion run counter to decades of U.S. trade negotiations and will have countless unintended and unforeseen consequences.  By extending U.S. patent law to foreign transactions that have nothing to do with the United States, the Court has called into question thousands of existing contracts between patentees and foreign distributors, many of which will now need to be renegotiated.  Further, because regional pricing will now be virtually eliminated, consumers in less affluent markets will be disadvantaged.  This will inevitably lead to an increase in grey marketed goods in the U.S.  FDA regulations and emphasis on drug safety will currently mitigate the potential harm in the pharmaceutical sector, but other industries with less regulation will be immediately impacted.  And it should be noted that, despite the Court’s suggestion to the contrary, this case itself illustrates that contract law will not be an effective alternative: Lexmark was not in privity with Impression Products, and therefore Lexmark could not have sued Impression Products for breach of contract.  Lexmark’s recourse would have been to sue the individual consumers who entered into the Return Program contracts with Lexmark.  Not only would suing individual consumers be unrealistic and expensive, but the remedies available to Lexmark and the ability of the individual consumers to satisfy judgments against them are unclear.”

In a press release, BIO CEO Jim Greenwood issued the following statement:

“BIO is concerned that today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Impression Products  v. Lexmark International could make it more difficult for patients across the world to gain access to critical therapies. The biotechnology industry is overwhelmingly comprised of small companies that rely on the stability and dependability of the patent system to bring innovative technologies to market. We fear this ruling will undermine that stability. The decision systematically undercuts innovative companies willing to sell their products at discounted prices for special uses, such as furthering scientific research and helping underserved populations. By extending the reach of U.S. patent law to foreign transactions that have nothing to do with domestic markets, the Court’s decision creates counterproductive uncertainty for U.S. innovators and their customers.

“BIO will work with our member companies to help them understand and comply with this ruling and adjust their intellectual property strategies accordingly.”

Filed under: Patently BIOtech, Public Policy, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

She Blinded Me With Science: What We’re Reading, May 2017

Each month, GMO Answers compiles a few stories we think particularly noteworthy. Science is everywhere, and that was especially true in the stories that caught our eye this past April. So go with the flow, lose control, feel the power, fight your resistance, be a catalyst, start a reaction, keep an ion the ball, and join us in finding out the latest in the world of science and GMOs in this month’s What We’re Reading post:

To learn more about the science of GMOs, agriculture, and plants, please visit the GMO Answers website.

Filed under: Farmer Gene, Food And Agriculture, , , , , , , , , , ,

10 new crowdfunded health devices that will intrigue you

money conflict of interest patient advocacy organizations

[Image from Unsplash]

With crowdfunding websites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, companies can obtain the funding for ideas they want to come to life (even potato salad parties), with the promise of something in return to the donors. And while crowdfunding presents challenges for regulated medical devices, it’s proven to be a boon for startups touting potentially innovative health and wellness devices to consumers.

Some of these devices raise eyebrows, of course. Do they actually work? Is there credible research to back up the technology? Are they going to run afoul of FDA? But they are nevertheless intriguing – and offer potential food for thought for medical device developers.

From devices that fix your posture to dissolvable strips meant to replace pills, here are 10 intriguing health and wellness campaigns seeking the funds to get their devices manufactured and delivered.

Next >>

USTR’s Report Targets Trade Barriers to Biotech

The Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) annual Special 301 Report identifies trade barriers to U.S. companies and products due to the intellectual property (IP) laws. Each year the USTR identifies countries which do not appropriately administer intellectual property rights.

This year’s report addresses many of the key IP-related challenges that BIO members face globally, including inadequate legal protections, enforcement issues, restrictive patentability criteria, lengthy patent backlogs, and the threat of outright expropriation of U.S. intellectual property rights through compulsory licensing.

Read BIO’s full statement on the USTR’s 2017 “Special 301 Report”