Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2012 (PDF, 3.5MB)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2012 12 2a.SUMMARY OF KEY SURVEY FINDINGS “A total of 139 respondents from both the commercial and research sectors employed 8085 FTE staff and reported income of $1.99 billion.” 2.1 Profile of a Typical Queensland Life Sciences Organisation Based on the median figures, a typical Life Sciences company would have had the following profile in 2011: Total income of $1.8 million Eight full time equivalent employees Total expenditure of $1.6 million Based on the median figures the typical Life Sciences research organisation had the following profile in 2011: Total income of $12.4 million 121 full time equivalent employees Total expenditure of $17.3 million 2.2 Summary of Survey Data for Key Measures The key figures from the survey are presented in Table 1 (below). This is the raw data from the survey representing the aggregated figures from the organisations who responded to the survey. There are no statistical extrapolations in this table and the figures can be compared to raw survey data for the TABLE 1: Summary of key statistics from the raw survey data 2011 i.e. no extrapolations Sample Size Total Reported (change from 2009) Mean (change from 2009) Median Figure Employment (FTEs) All Respondents (96% of total) 135 8085 (+21%) 60 (7%) 11 Companies 111 3433 (-3%) 31 (-21%) 8 Research Organisations Total Income ($m) 24 4652 (+48%) 194 (+73%) 121 All Respondents (71% of total) 100 $1995 (+60%) $19.9 (+45%) $3.3 Companies 78 $1220 (+22%) $15.6 (+15%) $1.8 Research Organisations Expenditure ($m) Total Expenditure ($m) 22 $774 (+219%) $35.2 (+146%) $12.4 All Respondents (65% of total) 92 $1091 (+24%) $11.9 (+3%) $2.4 Companies 75 $606 (-16%) $8.1 (-30%) $1.6 Research Organisations Wages and Salary Expenditure ($m) 17 $485 (+211%) $25.5 (+128%) $17.3 All Respondents (61% of total) 85 $564 (+126%) $6.6 (+106%) $0.8 Companies 69 $292 (+68%) $4.2 (+50%) $0.6 Research Organisations R&D Expenditure ($m) 16 $272 (+258%) $17.0 (+215%) $14.4 All Respondents (60% of total) 83 $189 (-13%) $2.3 (-23%) $0.2 Companies 67 $57 (-39%) $0.9 (-44%) $0.05 Research Organisations Capital Expenditure ($m) 16 $132 (+10%) $8.2 (-13%) $5.4 All Respondents (62% of total) 86 $134 (+177%) $1.6 (+62%) $0.05 Companies 70 $36 (+63%) $0.5 (-9%) $0.04 Research Organisations 16 $98 (+273%) $6.1 (+110%) $0.5 Numbers may appear inconsistent due to rounding.
TABLE 2: Commercial performance of survey respondents Measure 2009 survey, which is tabulated in the Appendices (see 14.2). For the mean and the total reported amount, the percentage change from 2009 to 2011 is included in brackets. With reference to the raw aggregated data the following observations can be made: For companies, the mean figures were down for employment (-21%) and expenditure (-30%), but the mean figure for income was up (15%) on the 2009 survey. For research organisations. The mean figures for employment (73%), income (146%) and expenditure (128%) were all up. 2.3 Commercial Performance Key measures of commercial performance (Table 2 – above) are presented alongside data for the same measures from previous surveys. These parameters were not assessed in the 2007 TMD Survey. The number of patents filed and out-licence agreements made were both up significantly, whilst the number of in-licences fell by about two-thirds between 2009 and 2011. Organisations reported increased use of CMOs (up 45%) and CROs (up 72%). Additional data on Patents and Licensing 2007 Survey (Biotech only) Of the 272 complete patent applications filed by, or granted to survey respondents in 2011, 17% were from research organisations and 83% from companies. Twelve organisations reported 83 out-license agreements2 , while nine organisations reported 18 in-license agreements in 2011. For 17% of respondents and, to a lesser extent, for a further 22% of respondents, the global economic environment 2009 Survey continues to be a significant consideration in determining their IP management strategy. The World Intellectual Property Organisation reported that resident patent filings by Australian inventors totalled 4.13 patents per $billion GDP in 2006 and 3.33 in 2009 (latest available data). The resident patent filings by Australian inventors per US$million of R&D expenditure has declined by 47% over the past nine years, from 0.51 in 2001 to 0.24 in 2009. 2.4 Industry Structure 2011 Survey There were 139 respondents to the QLS Survey 2011:111 companies (80%) and 28 research organisations (20%). Respondents were evenly split between the Biotechnology (49%) and TMD sectors (51%). Profile of Company Respondents Change 2009-2011 Australian Patents Filed or Granted 50 143 272 90% Out-License Agreements 20 39 83 113% In-License Agreements 35 49 18 -63% Utilisation of Contract Manufacturing Organisations 23% 33% 48% 45% Utilisation of Contract Research Organisations 23% 29% 50% 72% 85 (77%) were private companies, 11 (10%) were unlisted public companies and nine (8%) were publicly listed. There was one sole trader, one incorporated association and four who selected the ‘Other’ category (including two venture funds, one unincorporated joint venture and one statutory authority). 13% of companies were spun-out from a Queensland university or research institution. About one-third of the companies have been in existence for more than 15 years and about 18% were established within the last 5 years. A majority of companies (56%) operated within one of the five ‘Human Health’ sub-sectors 3 . 2 “Patent license agreements can be divided into in-licenses and out-licenses. In-licensing refers to agreements by which a party acquires the rights to use a patent, whereas out-licensing refers to agreements in which a patent holder grants a third party the right to use a patent.” Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and Ingenuity: Gene patenting and human health (ALRC Report 99). 3 The five human health sub-sectors are Pharmaceuticals, vaccines or drug discovery; Diagnostics; Complementary medicines; Functional food and nutraceuticals; Medical devices and equipment. 13
Page 1 and 2: Queensland Life Sciences Industry R
Page 3 and 4: Since VenturePro was established in
Page 5 and 6: Strata were defined by industry (TM
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF CONTENTS IMPORTANT NOTICE
Page 9 and 10: Queensland’s listed Life Sciences
Page 20: Queensland Life Sciences Industry R
Page 30: Queensland Life Sciences Industry R
Page 33 and 34: 5.2 Total Estimated Life Sciences I
Page 35 and 36: TABLE 22: IBISWorld industry statis
Page 37 and 38: TABLE 28: Wage and Salary Expenditu
Page 39 and 40: Research organisations reported tha
Page 62:
Queensland Life Sciences Industry R
Page 65 and 66:
10.2 Finance 10.2.1 Debt and Equity
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 33: Number of patent applica
Page 69 and 70:
By Anne-Marie Birkill, Partner at O
Page 71 and 72:
11.1.2 Contract Manufacturing Half
Page 73 and 74:
Figure 43: Importance of Queensland
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90:
show all

Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2012 (PDF, 3.5MB)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?