[Ip-health] IP-Watch: Biotech Marathon: Vaccines And Open Innovation, But Less IP?

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/02/16/biotech-marathon-vaccines-and-ope=
n-innovation-but-less-ip/

<SNIP>

On a panel on open innovation, Ludo Lauwers, senior vice president for
Johnson & Johnson pharmaceuticals, said that the current innovation
model is not sustainable for the pharmaceutical sector, and companies
should seek open innovation solutions. Open innovation is a network of
partnership, beyond classical networks, he said, and implies a change
of mentality.

<SNIP>

Bernard Munos, advisor on corporate strategy for Eli Lilly and
Company, said industry has a strong proprietary culture and a non-
disclosure policy, but a change of mentality is critical and although
it is happening, progress is slow. Eli Lilly, he said, is publishing
the audited results of their clinical trials. =93A lot of the things
that we protect do not really need to be protected. They could be out
there on the internet for the world to analyse,=94 and this would help a
lot of people, he said.

=93Maybe we created our own problem,=94 Munos said, adding that today any
innovation has so much prior art that =93to secure the access to this
prior art so that you can practice your innovation it is almost an
endless process,=94 taking years and raising costs so high that
sometimes it is not worth pursuing the project, he said.

This is a paradoxical situation where a patent system that was
designed to foster innovation is now actually hindering it, Munos
said. The patent system was created in a pre-internet days, he said,
and internet changed the dynamics of innovation. There are no longer
giant advances but rather a rising number of smaller scientific
contributions that need to be aggregated, he said.



-----------------------

16 February 2010
Biotech Marathon: Vaccines And Open Innovation, But Less IP?
By Catherine Saez @ 8:51 am

In a mad-dash 34-hour marathon, biotechnology and pharmaceutical
industry professionals met on 1-2 February in Geneva in what was
intended to be a hearth of partnering opportunities. About 600
participants debated future trends and current challenges along with
open innovation, global health and vaccines.

Contracts were discussed at all hours in cosy salons or individual
confessional-like booths, and some participants were finding the
compressed agenda overwhelming with an early start in the morning,
networking dinners late into the night and the VIP lounge open till
dawn.

Although the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors are being
challenged by the economic crisis and the inherent difficulties of
innovation, participants said that some sectors were promising, such
as vaccines, and biotech innovations, in particular in healthcare.
However, the current systems for research and development and
intellectual property protection might be obstacles for which
solutions have to be designed, they said.

According to speakers, greater convergence between different sectors
is important, as is the development of partnerships between the public
and the private sectors, in particular a closer collaboration with
governments in the public health sector.

The event is called BioSquare, a yearly occurrence which alternates
between France and Switzerland and organised by BioEvents, a
commercial subsidiary of the Fondation Scientifique de Lyon. According
to the organisers, 25 pharmaceutical, 241 biotech, and 58 start-up
companies attended the 2010 event, and 3,266 one-to-one meetings were
arranged.

On a panel on open innovation, Ludo Lauwers, senior vice president for
Johnson & Johnson pharmaceuticals, said that the current innovation
model is not sustainable for the pharmaceutical sector, and companies
should seek open innovation solutions. Open innovation is a network of
partnership, beyond classical networks, he said, and implies a change
of mentality.

IP Backlash on Innovation?

Intellectual property seems to be at a crossroads where industry still
strongly favours it but some speakers voiced concerns about the
possible counter-effects of too much IP protection on innovation.

Some departments inside companies are afraid of the risk of weak IP
protection, and IP conditions should be worked out up front when an
agreement is being negotiated, said Lauwers. =93What we are doing today
is not sustainable,=94 he said, arguing that beyond the intense IP
discussions in courts, the patient should be central and if solutions
can be brought to the market, everybody wins. Other ways must be used
to protect inventions, he said, such as market exclusivity, which can
delay the introduction of competing versions.

Bernard Munos, advisor on corporate strategy for Eli Lilly and
Company, said industry has a strong proprietary culture and a non-
disclosure policy, but a change of mentality is critical and although
it is happening, progress is slow. Eli Lilly, he said, is publishing
the audited results of their clinical trials. =93A lot of the things
that we protect do not really need to be protected. They could be out
there on the internet for the world to analyse,=94 and this would help a
lot of people, he said.

=93Maybe we created our own problem,=94 Munos said, adding that today any
innovation has so much prior art that =93to secure the access to this
prior art so that you can practice your innovation it is almost an
endless process,=94 taking years and raising costs so high that
sometimes it is not worth pursuing the project, he said.

This is a paradoxical situation where a patent system that was
designed to foster innovation is now actually hindering it, Munos
said. The patent system was created in a pre-internet days, he said,
and internet changed the dynamics of innovation. There are no longer
giant advances but rather a rising number of smaller scientific
contributions that need to be aggregated, he said.

Vaccines: Best Still to Come

Industry has derived significant economic benefits from the global
pandemic influenza crisis and industry representatives at BioSquare
were confident vaccines are a promising sector, despite rising
scrutiny of the decision to declare the flu a pandemic (IPW, Public
Health, 25 January 2010).

In the past, vaccines were an area of little interest for the
pharmaceutical industry because of their low profit margins, said
Hedwig Kresse, a senior analyst on infectious diseases for Data
Monitor. However, in the last 10 to 15 years, the situation has
changed considerably and vaccines are now a key revenue driver for the
sector, she said.

This change has been brought about by the better understanding of the
human immune system and development of new products that could be sold
at premium prices, such as the Merck vaccine against the human
papillomavirus, launched in 2006 and yielding important benefits, she
said.

However, the market is not growing as rapidly as it used to be, and
sales figures are showing stagnation, if the pandemic flu stockpiling
sales are subtracted.

According to Jacques-Fran=E7ois Martin, CEO of Mymetics, three major
phenomena are creating a favourable economic environment for vaccines.
The first phenomenon is evidence, as health ministers=92 planning is
based on evidence and =93vaccine will come first=94 because prevention is
the best way to spend money, the second is economical because
=93prevention always happens to have a better result=94 even for expensive
vaccines, and the third is that the top five pharmaceutical companies
no longer are producing 80% of the world=92s need and new vaccine
manufacturers are appearing, and they will provide cheap solutions to
cover the need of developing countries. All of this will contribute to
a solid growth for the sector, he said.

The key to the success in the vaccine sector has been innovation, said
Jacques Cholat, vice president of commercial operations for Sanofi
Pasteur. Some 20 years ago, the basic immunisation of a child would
have =93cost a few dollars, even in developed countries,=94 he said,
compared to US$130 today with the arrival of new vaccines such as that
for hepatitis B.

The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) process has
=93made credible the opening of the developing world to becoming a
potential customer,=94 Cholat said. Even at low prices =93like our
industry is willing to do,=94 when multiplying that price by the number
of children in developing countries, =93you reach a very significant
amount of money.=94

=93Today, with institutions like the Gates Foundation supporting GAVI,=94
real market for vaccines in developing countries has become credible,
Cholat said.

If technological and scientific developments are promising, existing
tools still have a lot to yield, said Cholat, taking the example of
whooping cough, in which nowadays, in most cases in the developed
world, adults are contaminating children. =93We are at the very early
stage of an immunisation strategy that will go far beyond children,=94
and which will address the immunisation status of adults all through
life, bringing a very substantial development of the market, he said.

Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch.

------------------------------------------------------------


Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
thiru@keionline.org


Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Mobile: +41 76 508 0997