DOCSLIB.ORG

Marion Merrell Dow (1989) and Glaxo Wellcome (1995)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marion Merrell Dow (1989) and Glaxo Wellcome (1995) COMPARING TWO ACQUISITIONS: Frequent acquisitions: High-profile mergers occur MARION MERRELL DOW (1989) frequently in the current competitive environment. Many reasons underlie the acquisition activity: AND GLAXO WELLCOME (1995) • Consolidation of European markets with the growth of economic unification in Western Will Mitchell Europe Duke University, The Fuqua School of Business • International expansion by European, Japanese, Revised November 2009 1 and American firms • Need of established pharmaceutical companies to This note assesses two acquisitions: (1) Merrell acquire new biotechnology skills Dow’s purchase of Marion in 1989, which created • Attempts to create efficiency through greater the ninth largest drug company worldwide at that R&D and marketing scale time, and (2) Glaxo’s purchase of Wellcome in 1995 • Attempts to obtain new blockbuster drugs as to form Glaxo Wellcome. Both deals are part of existing lead products come off patent extensive acquisition activity in the pharmaceutical • Attempts to gain negotiating power with health- industry, both at the time of the case and since those maintenance organizations and other big buyers acquisitions occurred. Worldwide acquisitions activity in the industry grew THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY dramatically during the 1980s, according to data from Thomson-SDC, from 16 in 1980 to 240 in 1989. The global pharmaceutical industry represents one of Tables 1 to 3 report examples of acquisitions in the the great financial and social success stories of the U.S., Europe, and Japan around the time of the case. twentieth century. Advances in science and technology made remarkable impacts on life The 15 largest companies accounted for about 70% expectancies and quality of life. At the beginning of of total prescription drug sales during the 1990s. In st the 21 century, changes within the pharmaceutical turn, these dominant players were developing industry are creating new challenges and increasingly large armies of sales representatives. opportunities for pharmaceutical companies as they Each of the top ten companies in the mid-1990s strive to continue generating above-average (American Home Products/Wyeth, AstraZeneca, shareholder returns and positive social impact. Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glaxo Wellcome, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Schering-Plough, Filling the pipeline through R&D: Scientific and SmithKlineBeecham), for example, had U.S. advances – in particular, the study of the human sales forces with more than 4,000 reps genome – are leading to an improved understanding of the genetic causes of diseases, enabling companies IMS HEALTH data show that consolidation in the to develop new drugs for previously untreated global pharmaceutical industry has had a substantial conditions. At the same time, though, a single effect on the market shares of the top pharmaceutical blockbuster drug can represent 30% to 50% – or companies. In 1990, the sales of the leading ten more – of a company’s pharmaceutical sales. When pharmaceutical companies accounted for 28% of the such a drug comes off patent, the company faces global pharmaceutical market. Ten years on, that major challenges to replace the sales. Moreover, proportion had reached 45% and was accelerating; it development costs have increased as companies have has continued to accelerate since then. The success of sought the new skills they need to respond to some of the merged companies has been mixed, technological change. however, with some flourishing while others have struggled. The importance of marketing: Marketing and sales activities are critically important in the industry. Despite the mixed success, acquisitions activity has Pharmaceutical firms are increasingly pursuing become vital to firm growth in the industry. Leading consumer-oriented marketing strategies. Indeed, firms that de-emphasized acquisitions during the selling and administration expenses typically exceed 1990s in favour of more internally-focused growth research and development expenditures, often by a strategies, such as Merck and Eli Lilly, declined in factor of 2:1. pharmaceutical sales rank during the 1990s. At the same time, acquisitions activity is not a new phenomenon in the industry. Pharmaceutical 1 The note uses information available from public sources. 1 acquisitions have been common since the early 20th MMD. The company planned to draw key century. Most of the leaders in the 1980s and 1990s management of the new company from both Merrell acquired many rivals and smaller firms during the Dow and Marion. past decades. Thus, although the scale and frequency of acquisition activity was greater in the 1990s and The new company had 1,500 sales representatives in 2000s, the industry has long experience with the United States and a significant marketing acquisition as a means of growth and expansion. presence in foreign markets. In addition to its prescription drug business, the new company also MARION MERRELL DOW ACQUISITION had a small over-the-counter sales force, with 23 full- time and 200 part-time salespeople for consumer The Dow Chemical Company’s Merrell Dow unit products (of MMD’s 1991 sales, $110 million were acquired a controlling share of Marion Laboratories sales of nonprescription drugs). in 1989, creating Marion Merrell Dow (MMD). The companies announced the agreement on July 18, The company stated that it did not expect layoffs as a 1989. In the first step of the two-stage deal, Dow result of the merger. bought 39 percent of Marion's 150 million outstanding shares at $38 each, or about $2.2 billion. Analysts saw the deal as part of a continuing About a year later, the chemical company acquired consolidation in the drug business. On announcement another 28 percent of Marion's stock for $3.3 billion, of the deal, Marion shares rose $8.25 to $33.50, while giving Dow a 67 percent interest in Marion for a cost Dow Chemical shares at first fell $1.50 to $88.375 of $5.5 billion. In addition, Dow Chemical and then quickly recovered (see Figure 1). At the subsequently incurred a contingent liability stemming same time, some doubts also surfaced in the from the acquisition that resulted in a further pay out investment community: Robert Uhl Jr., an analyst exceeding $1 billion. This payout arose from the with Salomon Brothers in New York, noted that structure of the deal, whereby Dow issued a security "there could be generic competitors for any of their called a Contingent Variable Right that essentially major products." gave an option to Marion shareholders to sell their stock to MMD for $45.75 at some point in the future. History of the Companies Because the stock did not rise to this level, Dow incurred the additional liability. In the process, Dow Marion: Ewing Marion Kauffman started Marion increased its stake in MMD to 72% by 1992. Laboratories in 1950 in the basement of his St. Louis, Missouri home. The company introduced its first The new company planned to operate as an product for calcium supplementation, Os-Cal®, made independent publicly traded company. The deal was from oyster shells, in 1951. In 1989, the company the largest transaction until that date in a series of was headquartered in Kansas City. drug company acquisitions, although subsequent purchases of SmithKline by Beecham and Squibb by Marion had 1989 sales of $930 million, with a net Bristol-Myers soon surpassed the MMD price. The income of $227 million. Marion’s success in the combination of two mid-sized companies created the 1980s had been driven largely by its popular United State’s third largest and world’s ninth largest cardiovascular drug, Cardizem (diltiazem), which pharmaceutical concern at that time. The acquisition Marion began selling in 1982 under license from was part of a recent series of combinations in the Tanabe Seiyaku Co. of Japan. Cardizem provided industry (see Table 2). treatment for high blood pressure and angina. Cardizem generated sales of $600 million for Marion The new company, Marion Merrell Dow, was based in 1989, up from $441 million in 1988. The company in Kansas City with annual revenues of $2.1 billion had just introduced Cardizem SR, a time-release and 10,000 worldwide employees, of whom 2,252 version of Cardizem. Their ulcer drug, Carafate were in research. Marion Merrell Dow's $350 million (sucralfate), accounted for $200 million sales in research budget ranked it in the top six companies in 1989. Marion licensed Carafate from another terms of pharmaceutical research spending. Japanese firm, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., and introduced the drug about 1983. Carafate had Joseph G. Temple Jr., executive vice president of recently gone off patent in the U.S., while Cardizem Dow Chemical and chairman and chief executive was scheduled to go off patent in 1992. Marion was officer of Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, became the considered to have an aggressive sales force, chairman and CEO of MMD. Fred W. Lyons Jr., particularly in the ulcer and cardiovascular markets. president and CEO of Marion, became president of 2 Merrell Dow: William S. Merrell founded Merrell Drugs, a drug manufacturer and retailer in Cincinnati, Acquisition Rationale Ohio, in 1828. Dow Chemical bought the company in 1981, combining it with a small existing Dow Marion perspective: Fred W. Lyons Jr., President pharmaceutical business. In 1989, Dow operated and Chief Executive officer of Marion Laboratories, Merrell Dow within Dow’s Consumer Specialties noted that mid-sized companies were having unit, along with agricultural chemicals, personal care, difficulty competing in the drug industry and food protection (such as Ziploc bags), and cleaning believed that the merger would help Marion go into products (such as Fantastik cleaner). Other Dow the 1990s with a much stronger competitive position. Chemical segments included chemicals and Most importantly, the deal injected new products into performance products, plastics, and hydrocarbons. a company that would face stiff competition from Dow Chemical had sales of $17.6 billion in 1989, generic drugs when Cardizem and Carafate’s with net income of $2.49 billion.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EMJ-5.2-2020-4.Pdf
    Contents + EDITORIAL BOARD 4 + CONGRESS REVIEW Review of the European Conference on Rare Diseases, 10 15th – 16th May 2020 + FEATURE The COVID-19 Conundrum and Cancer – Making Perfect Sense of 19 Imperfect Data Utkarsh Acharya + SYMPOSIUM REVIEW Early Intervention with Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor in Ulcerative 22 Colitis: The Missing Piece of The Puzzle? + POSTER REVIEWS Eicosapentaenoic Acid: Atheroprotective Properties and the Reduction 29 of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Events Chlormethine Gel for Mycosis Fungoides T-cell Lymphoma: Recent 37 Real-World Data + INTERVIEWS Data from the AUGUSTUS Trial Adds an Important Piece to the 42 Complex Puzzle of Antithrombotic Treatment for Those with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation with Acute Coronary Syndrome and/or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Renato D. Lopes and Amit N. Vora Oral Prostacyclin Pathway Agents in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: 47 An Expert Clinical Consensus Vallerie McLaughlin and Sean Gaine 2 EMJ • June 2020 • Cover Image © Anna Grigorjeva / 123rf.com EMJ “It is more important than ever that information is disseminated rapidly and responsibly in the face of such global threats” Spencer Gore, CEO + ARTICLES Editor's Pick: Bone-Related Markers of Cardiovascular Disease 54 Ernesto Maddaloni et al. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines on 63 Cannabis-Based Medicinal Products: Clinical Practice Implications for Epilepsy Management Rhys H. Thomas and Jacob Brolly The Role of Next-Generation Sequencing and Reduced Time to 76 Diagnosis In Haematological Diseases: Status Quo and Prospective Overview of Promising Molecular Testing Approaches Christina Ranft Bernasconi et al. Sebaceous Carcinoma: A Rare Extraocular Presentation of the Cheek 85 Ritu Swali et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Pharmacology in the UK, C. 1950–2000: Industry and Regulation
    CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY IN THE UK, c. 1950–2000: INDUSTRY AND REGULATION The transcript of a Witness Seminar held by the Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL, London, on 25 September 2007 Edited by L A Reynolds and E M Tansey Volume 34 2008 ©The Trustee of the Wellcome Trust, London, 2008 First published by the Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL, 2008 The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL is funded by the Wellcome Trust, which is a registered charity, no. 210183. ISBN 978 085484 118 9 All volumes are freely available online at: www.history.qmul.ac.uk/research/modbiomed/wellcome_witnesses/ Please cite as: Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2008) Clinical Pharmacology in the UK c.1950-2000: Industry and regulation. Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 34. London: Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL. CONTENTS Illustrations and credits v Abbreviations vii Witness Seminars: Meetings and publications; Acknowledgements E M Tansey and L A Reynolds ix Introduction Professor Parveen Kumar xxiii Transcript Edited by L A Reynolds and E M Tansey 1 References 73 Biographical notes 89 Glossary 103 Index 109 ILLUSTRATIONS AND CREDITS Figure 1 AstraZeneca Clinical Trials Unit, South Manchester. Reproduced by permission of AstraZeneca. 6 Figure 2 A summary of the organization of clinical trials. Adapted from www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/info/glossary (visited 1 May 2008). 10 Figure 3 Clinical trial certificates (CTC) and clinical trial exemption (CTX), 1972–1985. Adapted from Speirs (1983) and Speirs (1984).
    [Show full text]
  • Wellcome Four Year Phd Programme in Integrative Cell Mechanisms
    2021 Wellcome Four Year PhD Programme in Integrative Cell Mechanisms Training the next generation of Molecular Cell Biologists Background and Aims of Programme The Wellcome Four Year PhD Programme in Integrative Cell Mechanisms (iCM) is closely associated with the Wellcome Centre for Cell Biology and trains the next generation of cell and molecular biologists in the application of quantitative methods to understand the inner workings of distinct cell types in different settings. A detailed understanding of normal cellular function is required to investigate the molecular cause of disease and design future treatments. However, data generated by biological research requires increasingly complex analysis with technological advances in sequencing, mass spectrometry/proteomics, super-resolution microscopy, Wellcome Centre for Cell Biology 2021 synthetic and structural biology generating increasingly large, complex datasets. In addition, innovations in computer sciences and informatics are transforming data acquisition and analysis and breakthroughs in physics, chemistry and engineering allow the development of devices, molecules and instruments that drive the biological data revolution. Exploiting technological advances to transform our understanding of cellular mechanisms will require scientists who have been trained across the distinct disciplines of natural sciences, engineering, informatics and mathematics. To address this training need, iCM PhD projects are cross-disciplinary involving two primary supervisors with complementary expertise. Supervisor partnerships pair quantitative scientists with cell biologists ensuring that students develop pioneering cross-disciplinary collaborative projects to uncover cellular mechanisms relevant to health and disease. We aim to recruit students with a variety of backgrounds across the biological and physical sciences, including Biochemistry, Biomedical Science, Cell Biology, Chemistry, Computational Data Sciences, Engineering, Genetics, Mathematics, Molecular Biology and Physics.
    [Show full text]
  • 05/01/02 Louisiana Medicaid Management
    APPENDIX C 05/01/02 LOUISIANA MEDICAID MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM PAGE 1 DEPT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS - BUREAU OF HEALTH SERVICES FINANCING LOUISIANA MEDICAID PHARMACY BENEFITS MANAGEMENT UNIT ONLY THESE COMPANIES PRODUCTS ARE COVERED AND ONLY THOSE DOSAGE FORMS LISTED IN APPENDIX A. MEDICAID DRUG FEDERAL REBATE PARTICIPATING PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES LABELER PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY EFFECTIVE END DATE CODE DATE 00002 ELI LILLY & CO 04/01/91 00003 E.R.SQUIBB & SONS,INC 04/01/91 00004 HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE,INC 04/01/91 00005 LEDERLE LABORATORIES AMERICAN CYANAMID 04/01/91 00006 MERCK SHARP & DOHME 04/01/91 00007 SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION 04/01/91 00008 WYETH LABORATORIES 04/01/91 00009 THE UPJOHN COMPANY 04/01/91 00011 BECTON DICKINSON MICROBIOLOGY SYSTEMS 10/01/91 07/01/98 00013 ADRIA LABORATORIES DIV.OF ERBAMONT,INC 04/01/91 00014 G.D.SEARLE & CO 04/01/91 01/01/01 00015 MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY 04/01/91 00016 KABI PHARMACIA 04/01/91 00021 REED & CARNRICK 10/01/96 01/01/97 00023 ALLERGAN,INC 04/01/91 00024 WINTHROP PHARMACEUTICALS 04/01/91 00025 G.D.SEARLE & CO 04/01/91 00026 MILES INC.,PHARMACEUTICAL DIVISION 04/01/91 00028 GEIGY PHARMACEUTICALS 04/01/91 00029 SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION 04/01/91 00031 ROBINS,A.H. 04/01/91 00032 SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS 04/01/91 00033 SYNTEX 04/01/91 00034 THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY 04/01/91 00037 CARTER-WALLACE,INC 04/01/91 00038 STUART PHARMACEUTICALS,ICI AMERICAS INC 04/01/91 07/01/01 00039 HOECHST-ROUSSEL PHARMACEUTICALS INC 04/01/91 00043 SANDOZ CONSUMER CORPORATION 04/01/91 00044 KNOLL PHARMACEUTICALS
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Ftc Antitrust Actions in Pharmaceutical Services and Products
    OVERVIEW OF FTC ANTITRUST ACTIONS IN PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES AND PRODUCTS Health Care Division Bureau of Competition Federal Trade Commission Washington D.C. 20580 Markus H. Meier Assistant Director Bradley S. Albert Deputy Assistant Director Saralisa C. Brau Deputy Assistant Director September 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION. ........................................................... 1 II. CONDUCT INVOLVING PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES AND PRODUCTS. 3 A. Monopolization. ...................................................... 3 B. Agreements Not to Compete. ............................................ 8 C. Agreements on Price or Price-Related Terms. 14 D. Agreements to Obstruct Innovative Forms of Health Care Delivery or Financing. 20 E. Illegal Tying and Other Arrangements. .................................... 20 III. PHARMACEUTICAL MERGERS. ........................................... 20 A. Horizontal Mergers Between Direct Competitors. 20 B. Potential Competition Mergers. ......................................... 44 C. Innovation Market Mergers. ............................................ 47 D. Vertical Mergers...................................................... 49 IV. INDUSTRY GUIDANCE STATEMENTS...................................... 50 A. Advisory Opinions. ................................................... 50 B. Citizen Petition to the Food and Drug Administration. 51 V. AMICUS BRIEFS. ......................................................... 51 VI. INDICES. ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of Glaxosmithkline Plc )
    )l GROWTH THROUGH MERGER: A CASE STUDY OF GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC ) / BY JUNE WANGARI UNIVERSITY OF NAIR03J LOWER KABETE LIBRARY A MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA), SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI JULY, 2008 DECLARATION I declare that this project is my original work and has never been presented for academic purposes in any other University. CANDIDATE: JUNE WANGARI DATE .(.91. This research project has been submitted for examination with my approval as the University Supervisor SIGNED. DATE. Prof. Evans Aosa Department Of Business Administration, School Of Business, University Of Nairobi 11 DEDICATION I dedicate this project to my daughter Jemima, who was born within the first year of my post graduate studies. And now that she is in kindergarten, I see that I have instilled in her the love for reading and learning and I trust that she will go very far. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I thank God for seeing me through my studies as I tried to balance between my family, my work and my studies. I wish to acknowledge the contributions that were made in the course of this project by several individuals and organizations. I wish to acknowledge gratefully the following people, whose effort influenced the content and direction of this project. My first thanks go to my Supervisor Prof. Evans Aosa for his constant analytical criticism and encouragement. Thanks a lot. I wish to thank my friends for a lot of support and encouragement to me in pursuit of this goal.
    [Show full text]
  • Drugs That Changed the World
    Drugs That Changed the World Drugs That Changed the World How Therapeutic Agents Shaped Our Lives Irwin W. Sherman CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 © 2017 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business No claim to original U.S. Government works Printed on acid-free paper Version Date: 20160922 International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-9649-1 (Hardback) This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. While all reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, neither the author[s] nor the publisher can accept any legal respon- sibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publishers wish to make clear that any views or opinions expressed in this book by individual editors, authors or contributors are personal to them and do not neces- sarily reflect the views/opinions of the publishers. The information or guidance contained in this book is intended for use by medical, scientific or health-care professionals and is provided strictly as a supplement to the medical or other professional’s own judgement, their knowledge of the patient’s medical history, relevant manufacturer’s instructions and the appropriate best practice guidelines. Because of the rapid advances in medical science, any information or advice on dosages, procedures or diagnoses should be independently verified. The reader is strongly urged to consult the relevant national drug formulary and the drug companies’ and device or material manufacturers’ printed instructions, and their websites, before administering or utilizing any of the drugs, devices or materials mentioned in this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Blunted Endogenous Opioid Release Following an Oral Dexamphetamine Challenge in Abstinent Alcohol- Dependent Individuals
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Explore Bristol Research Turton, S., Myers, J. F. M., Mick, I., Colasanti, A., Venkataraman, A., Durant, C., ... Lingford-Hughes, A. (2018). Blunted endogenous opioid release following an oral dexamphetamine challenge in abstinent alcohol- dependent individuals. Molecular Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0107-4 Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record License (if available): CC BY Link to published version (if available): 10.1038/s41380-018-0107-4 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Nature Publishing Group at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0107-4 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms Molecular Psychiatry https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0107-4 ARTICLE Blunted endogenous opioid release following an oral dexamphetamine challenge in abstinent alcohol-dependent individuals 1 1 1,2 3,4 1 1 Samuel Turton ● James FM Myers ● Inge Mick ● Alessandro Colasanti ● Ashwin Venkataraman ● Claire Durant ● 5 6 6 7 8,9 8,10 Adam Waldman ● Alan Brailsford ● Mark C Parkin ● Gemma Dawe ● Eugenii A Rabiner ● Roger N Gunn ● 11 1 1 Stafford L Lightman ● David J Nutt ● Anne Lingford-Hughes Received: 21 September 2017 / Revised: 9 May 2018 / Accepted: 14 May 2018 © The Author(s) 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • 260 Book Reviews
    Book Reviews relation to the development of neurology as a arguments of Kant or Goethe, or indeed medical specialty and to knowledge of the Alexander Bain, were not? brain. (This in part perhaps reflects the lack of This “life” will give great pleasure and archival material on Head’s scientific work.) interest to many readers, perhaps most of all In particular, Head’s career as a theorist draws to those who, like Head himself, find both on the work of John Hughlings Jackson, work the sciences and the arts personally which, so Head claimed, had been almost indispensable. totally ignored. Had it? What reception did Head’s theory of sensation have? The Roger Smith, biography does not enable us to judge Head’s Moscow originality. (For Jackson, one should turn, perhaps the message is, to Jacyna’s earlier fine study, Lost words: narratives of language and Roy Church and E M Tansey, Burroughs the brain, 2000.) Head’s functionalist way of Wellcome & Co.: knowledge, trust, profit thinking encouraged him to mix physiological and the transformation of the British and psychological languages and therapies. pharmaceutical industry, 1880–1940, How special was this? Secondly, the book Lancaster, Crucible Books, 2007, pp. xxvii, does look “outwards” from the archive, as 564, illus. £19.99, $39.99 (paperback 97801- opposed to using the archive to illuminate the 905472-07-9). man, in two regards. The first of these, naturally, is to use the individual career to This work, based on detailed research of the illustrate contemporary medical practice. In firm’s archives, aims to tell the history of addition, however, Jacyna proposes a large Burroughs Wellcome, founded by Silas thesis, which gives the book its title, that Burroughs and Henry Wellcome in 1880, Head’s manner of life and work makes him an which eventually became the largest British exemplary “modernist”.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    BEYOND THE BORN GLOBAL: UNDERSTANDING THE INTERNATIONALISATION PROCESS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY VENTURES Lisa Jane Hewerdine Business School University of Adelaide August 2008 ABSTRACT BEYOND THE BORN GLOBAL: Understanding the Internationalisation Process of Biotechnology Ventures The past decade has seen a surge of interest in ‘born global’ firms which internationalise rapidly following their inception. While born global internationalisation paths are commonly associated with high tech firms, there has been some limited research suggesting that biotech ventures do not fit this model. My aim, therefore, was to contribute to international business research by investigating whether biotech firms internationalise as is suggested by born global scholars. Accordingly, my research focused on examining how the internationalisation of these small firms with radical innovations might best be explained. My research proceeded by means of a comparative case study of four Australian biotech companies, with their internationalisation histories forming the focal unit of analysis. The first contribution resulting from my cross-case analysis is to show that oversimplified measures of firm inception have led to ‘conceptual stretching’ of the born global category. This does not imply that born globals do not exist; rather; I argue that greater care needs to be applied when measuring inception. Ultimately, biotech firms do not fit easily into the born global category because the lengthy innovation process they undergo means they are likely to have strong pre-organisational roots extending far beyond their incorporation date. This pre-organisational history needs to be factored in because of its effects on firm internationalisation. i My second contribution is to suggest a driver for internationalisation that to date has not been included in existing research into high tech firms: namely, the influence of the innovation process.
    [Show full text]
  • Merrell Dow's Terfenadine Revisited)
    The Unique Problem of Inventions Which Are Fully Enabled and Fully Described, But Not Fully Understood (Merrell Dow's Terfenadine Revisited) H. Samuel Frost of Bereskin & Parr 2007 Intellectual Property Journal October 2007 © Bereskin & Parr Bereskin & Parr 40 King Street West, 40th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 3Y2 Phone: 416-364-7311 Fax: 416-361-1398 www.bereskinparr.com 1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................3 Inventions That are Not Fully Understood.........................................................3 Public Right to Use an Invention ...........................................................................4 Prior User Right.................................................................................................5 Novelty Requirement.........................................................................................6 Requirement for Fully Enabling Disclosure........................................................7 Patent Term.......................................................................................................8 Public Right to Use an Expired Invention ..........................................................8 The Dual Role of the Novelty Standard...............................................................10 Merrell Dow (Terfenadine) Case .........................................................................11 Germany..........................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) MDL No
    Case 2:16-cv-17144 Document 1 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) MDL No. 2740 PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION SECTION “N” (5) HON. KURT D. ENGLELHARDT BARBARA EARNEST Plaintiff, MAG. JUDGE NORTH vs. COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND SANOFI S.A., Civil Action No. __________ AVENTIS PHARMA S.A., and SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, separately, and doing business as WINTHROP U.S HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC.; and SUN PHARMA GLOBAL INC.; and McKESSON CORPORATION d/b/a McKESSON PACKAGING; and SANDOZ INC.; and ACCORD HEALTHCARE INC.; and APOTEX, INC.; and PFIZER, INC.; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; and NORTHSTAR RX LLC; and EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, Barbara Earnest, by and through her attorneys, Bachus & Schanker, LLC, respectfully submits the following Complaint and Jury Demand against Defendants Sanofi S.A.; Aventis Pharma S.A.; and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, separately,; and doing business as Winthrop Case 2:16-cv-17144 Document 1 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 101 U.S and Hospira Worldwide, Inc.; and Sun Pharma Global Inc.; and McKesson Corporation d/b/a McKesson Packaging; and Sandoz Inc.; and Accord Healthcare Inc..; and Apotex, Inc.; and Pfizer, Inc.; and Actavis Pharma, Inc.; and Northstar Rx LLC; and Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and alleges the following upon personal knowledge, information and belief, and investigation of counsel. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained by Plaintiff as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants Sanofi S.A., Aventis Pharma S.A., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
    [Show full text]