Mike is beating the bushes, trying to get answers on vectors/gene therapy. It's an area that I prefer to avoid, but I'd love an early pointer to the winners.
Yes, ISIP for antisense, but too risky for me right now. ABGX and MEDX..... continues to look more positive, I agree (that reminds me, I still gotta answer that question in another thread).
Screening..... OSIP, ABSC, SIBI.... although the fashion in which Comer is using the SIBI patents is right out of 1985 rationale, and it's really ticking me off.
Proprietary databases...... INCY, GENE and others.
Enhanced protein yields from tissue culture...... IDPH, CEGE, XOMA, TKTX.
Given molecules...... obviously, I like SNAP or I wouldn't have focused on them...... RGEN for CTLA4 play? There are obviously many companies to place in this category, from the SNAPs (proprietary rights to the screening molecules that can yield many different drugs) to the companies that have key composition of matter rights (e.g., TTP). I guess we should not focus on the latter sort of company, unless we have a category for "huge market, drug going gangbusters in clinicals" honorable mention.
Quiet "go" signals........ companies that have licensed the Genetics Institute database.
We need volunteers to start and maintain certain lists, starting with "companies that have undervalued patents". The conceptual framework for this first list?....... if a big pharma had the patent and would back it with sufficient litigatory (is that a word?) clout, what would the patent be worth? We need to think in terms of big pharmas and big biotechs becoming a cross between old-time pharma entities and a Stanford, licensing the Cohen-Boyer patent. |
