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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2012 68 TABLE 58: Out-license agreements reported by biotechnology organisations No. of Respondents Out-License Agreements No. Agreements per Respondent Biotechnology 2005 58 17 0.29 Biotechnology 2007 65 20 0.31 Biotechnology 2009 81 39 0.48 Biotechnology 2011 116 83 0.70 NB: Comparable longitudinal data is not available for the TMD sector Nine organisations reported a total of 18 in-license agreements in 2011. A comparison of in-license agreements reported by Biotechnology organisations through the past three surveys is shown in Table 59. The number of in-licensing agreements per respondent has fallen significantly. TABLE 59: In-license agreements reported by biotechnology organisations in 2009 and 2011 Biotechnology 2007 Biotechnology 2009 Biotechnology 2011 No. of Respondents In-License Agreements No. Agreements per Respondent 65 35 0.54 83 49 0.59 116 18 0.16 NB: Comparable longitudinal data is not available for the TMD sector 10.3.2 IP Management Strategy In the current survey, participants specified to what extent their IP management strategy is influenced by the changing global economic situation and the challenges and opportunities created by changes to patent law in China, India and the US. The global economic situation continues to be a significant influence on the development of the IP strategy for 17% of respondents and some influence for a further 22% of respondents. Changes to patent laws in China, the US and India are significantly influencing the development of IP strategy for 16% of respondents and having some influence on a further 24% (Figure 37). Figure 37: The effect of the global economic situation and patent law change on IP management (116 respondents)
By Anne-Marie Birkill, Partner at OneVentures Innovation Fund INDUSTRY COMMENTARY VC INVESTMENT IN THE LIFE SCIENCES SECTOR IN AUSTRALIA — PLEASE, SIR, I WANT SOME MORE Many commentators have noted that post-GFC the availability of VC funding for the Life Sciences sector in Australia has diminished considerably, which is a shame, given the Australian Governments large investment in life sciences R&D, the quality of the people backed by this investment, the standard of the facilities available in which to perform that R&D and the potential of many of the outcomes of this investment and effort. In the two years since OneVentures launched in early 2010, we have seen more than 100 life sciences sector investment opportunities (roughly 15% of total deal flow) and invested in just two of these (out of a total of six investments to date, so 33% of investments by number) despite seeing a number of other companies in which we would have liked to invest. As one of a handful of investors placing capital in the life sciences sector, we simply don’t have sufficient funds under management (FUM) to be able to service the quality deal flow we see. What we are seeing is effectively a “broken pipeline” – we push loads of funding into the early stages of developing our life sciences opportunity via the ARC and NHMRC, then for the lucky few commercialisation grants and angel funding develop those opportunities a little further, then there is a great gaping hole through which only the best of the best (or the luckiest or the most tenacious) pass — with only a handful of life sciences deals receiving venture capital every year. Like water escaping a leaking pipe it is just such an awful waste. We need a concerted effort to increase the total FUM otherwise we risk not only continuing this wastage, but disrupting the very fabric of our life sciences industry. On the bright side, we are seeing some potential superstars emerging. Recently, OneVentures led a $15M syndicated investment in Vaxxas Pty Ltd, a company developing a new medical device for vaccine delivery using a game-changing micro needle technology (NanopatchTM) developed at The University of Queensland. The NanopatchTM, which is pain-free, more effective and may reduce the requirement to refrigerate vaccines is targeting a multi-billion market and is already receiving strong interest from big pharmaceutical companies for use with their vaccines. Alongside other VCs OneVentures has also invested in Hatchtech Pty Ltd (Melbourne), the developer of a proprietary next generation head lice treatment, DeOvo, which has successfully completed a Phase IIb clinical trial and is poised to enter Phase III. Subject to regulatory approval, market launch is anticipated in late 2014. DeOvo is a head lice product that kills both lice and eggs treating all life cycle stages of the organism in a single application. These examples are indicative of the very high quality and of the commercial potential of R&D coming out of our research institutions. More VC funding, managed by fund managers with the expertise and experience to efficiently take them out of the laboratory and toward commercial success, is essential if we are to seed the next crop of Peplins, Acruxs and Cochlears. Like Oliver Twist the sector may survive but can’t thrive on thin gruel. 69
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 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19: Queensland Life Sciences Industry R
Page 20: 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 65 and 66: 10.2 Finance 10.2.1 Debt and Equity
Page 67: Figure 33: Number of patent applica
Page 71 and 72: 11.1.2 Contract Manufacturing Half
Page 73 and 74: Figure 43: Importance of Queensland
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?