N² 12 | Volume 11 | 2012 | 10.00 Ì | ISSN 1618-8276 | A 60711 |
European Biotechnology News G_XidX `ea\Zkj \m\i Science & Industry
dfi\ M: `ekf Y`fk\Z_ E E E R F
T P R E XC
CENTRAL EUROPE
Germany’s Brain AG nets record financing in industrial biotech NORTHERN EUROPE
Pronova to be taken over by chemical giant BASF in 664m deal WESTERN EUROPE
European Commission approves uniQure gene therapy for market SPECIAL
Bioregions in the European Union SOUTHERN EUROPE
Basque consortium leads EU prenatal genetic testing initiative EASTERN EUROPE
Hungarian government signs strategic partnership with Richter SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Hormone derivative halts multiple sclerosis in EAE model
GE Healthcare Life Sciences Now part of GE Healthcare
Unlimited growth potential
Use one convenient bioreactor platform from process development to production. Don’t let different vessel forms, materials, and control systems impede your growth. Xcellerex XDR™ bioreactors simplify process scale-up and scale-down, providing a highly engineered, well-characterized product platform. Our service and support make scalability even easier. Spend your time growing cells — and outgrowing the competition.
www.gelifesciences.com/xcellerex
E: webinquiry@xcellerex.com P: 508.480.XCEL(9235) or 1.866.XCELLEREX
GE, imagination at work and GE monogram are trademarks of General Electric Company. Xcellerex is a registered trademark of Xcellerex, Inc. XDR is a trademark of Xcellerex, Inc. © 2012 General Electric Company — All rights reserved. First published September 2012.
N –º 12 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
INTRO
FREE EXCERPT
EDITORIAL
Getting regulation right for patients and innovation Serge Bernasconi, Chief Executive Officer, Eucomed, Brussels
T
Serge Bernasconi, currently the Chief Executive Officer of Eucomed – the European Medical Technology Industry Association – has more than 30 years of experience in the worlds of pharmaceuticals and medical devices at companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Schering Plough in the US and Europe, and more recently Medtronic. In his capacity as President & International Regional Vice President of Medtronic France, Bernasconi was elected President of APIDIM (The French Association for the Promotion of Innovation in Medical Devices), and Vice President and Treasurer of SNITEM (French Medical Technology Industry Association).
he revision of the EU Medical Devices Directives (MDD) could not have come at a more critical moment. The recent PIP breast implant incident has made it crystal clear that healthcare actors must pull together to ensure similar cases of fraud never happen again. We believe Europe needs a clear, predictable and effective regulatory system that deserves patient trust – a system that provides them with safe and timely access to the latest innovative technologies. The European Commission has tabled a proposal, and we welcome the majority of their recommended measures. They improve patient safety, do not unnecessarily delay patient access to life-saving medical technologies and do not hamper innovation. The proposal is on the right track in several key areas, and we applaud the Commission’s calls for improving notified bodies, increasing EU Member State coordination on vigilance and establishing a central registration database that can be accessed by governments and patients alike. But as we work together towards an improved system, we must remember that the current decentralised notified body system has provided a high level of safety, and consistently granted people in Europe the very fastest access to lifesaving medical technologies. We are convinced that, with the support of a regulatory framework that successfully marries safety and the availability of new technologies, we can remain in this privileged situation in Europe. The Commission’s proposed “scrutiny procedure”, however, represents a step in the wrong direction. When considering changes to the EU regulatory framework, we must strive to answer three questions: 1. Will the changes improve safety for patients? 2. Will they allow life-saving medical technologies to be made available to people in Europe just as fast as they do today?
3. Will they encourage the innovation that European healthcare systems urgently need to become more efficient? In the case of the scrutiny procedure, we believe the answer to all three of these questions is “no”, and therefore strongly oppose the proposed measure. The procedure will fundamentally change the current system, but will not lead to the desired outcome: increased safety for patients. It would address some calls to move towards a centralised, pharmaceuticalslike system, but will ultimately harm European patients and negatively impact European small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Recent independent research has shown that systems like these (similar to that at the US FDA) delay patient access to new technologies by 3 to 5 years without delivering additional safety. Europe needs a decentralised system that is specific to medical devices if it is to maintain safe and timely patient access to technologies, and keep Europe’s medical technology “innovation engine” running. We are committed to providing medical technologies that improve people’s lives and that are at the same time cost-effective. Europe has become a leader in healthcare innovation, and now more than ever it needs to cope with increased pressure on national healthcare budgets. The current regulatory framework has provided a high level of safety for patients in Europe without delaying access to life-saving medical technologies. Let’s not unnecessarily drive Europe’s strong innovation and research capabilities to other continents at a time when they are urgently needed here.
3
4
N –º 12 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
CIRCUL ATION
FREE EXCERPT
European Biotechnology News is published in co-operation with the following organisations: European Biotechnology
CMYK
NET WORK
Europe: european-biotechnology.net
Blue: 100/15/0/35 Orange: 0/75/90/0
Germany: biodeutschland.org
Switzerland: swissbiotech.org
Council of European BioRegions
Europe: cebr.net
Europe: ebe-biopharma.org
Europe: europabio.org
Norway: biotekforum.no
Ireland: ibec.ie/ibia
Finland: finbio.net
Denmark: danskbiotek.dk
Sweden: swedenbio.com
The Netherlands: niaba.nl
Belgium: bio.be
Spain: asebio.com
France: france-biotech.org
Italy: assobiotec.it
Hungary: hungarianbiotech.org
EuroBiotechNews covers the biotechnology sector of the current 27 EU member states, Norway and Switzerland. If you would like to subscribe, please refer to Portugal: www.apbio.pt
www.eurobiotechnews.eu
N –º 12 | Volume 11 | 2012
5
Euro|Biotech|News
CONTENTS
FREE EXCERPT
INSIGHT
COVER STORY
Heard in Brussels; EU microbe bank; GMO update 10 Scientists fear cuts in Horizon 2020
12
Orphan drug alliance; IP Flash
14
REGULATORY AFFAIRS Breaking news from the EMA
15
Update on clinical trials
16
ECONOMIC Focus on newsflow and dividends
17
Stock markets
18
PERSPECTIVES Voices of Europe
42
Biologics – taking the next step
44
Pharma looking to score with biotech innovation
6
Just when it looked liked belts couldn’t get any tighter in European venture capital circles, Big Pharma is filling funding gaps with “corporate venturing”. Many pharma majors have set up largely autonomous units to provide VC to promising biotech SMEs. On the surface, it looks like a win-win situation. Start-ups receive desperately needed cash, while pharma giants reap dividends for making the right bets, and receive options on what they desperately need – successful new drugs. But is it really that simple?
REGIONAL NEWS SERVICES
SPECIAL
Northern Europe Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland 20
Bioregions
Central Europe Germany, Austria, Switzerland
Bioregions – becoming the next major hub
31
Advancing life sciences in the heart of Europe
32
Clusters – where will they go from here?
36
22
Western Europe UK, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland 24 Southern Europe Italy, Spain, Portugal Eastern Europe Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Czech Republic
26
28
Lithuania – an emerging hub with biotech know-how
38
HealthCapital Berlin-Brandenburg
40
Partners & Associations
4
Imprint
5
Biopeople News from Pharmalink, Forbion Capital Partners, Smith & Nephew, Sanofi, Aptar Pharma, and the EFPIA
47
Company index
48
Events What’s on in January-February 2013
49
Encore
50
Imprint European Biotechnology News is published monthly by: BIOCOM AG, Lützowstr. 33–36, D-10785 Berlin, Germany, Tel.: +49-30-264921-0, Fax: +49-30-264921-11, E-Mail: service@eurobiotechnews. eu; Internet: www.eurobiotechnews.eu, Publisher: Andreas Mietzsch, Editorial Team: Thomas Gabrielczyk (Managing Editor), Derrick Williams (Co-editor), Dr. Patrick Dieckhoff, Dr. Bernd Kaltwaßer, Dr. Martin Laqua; Advertising: Oliver Schnell, +49-30-2649-2145, Advertising USA: Avani Media, Inc. , Leslie Hallanan, Tel.: +1-415-331-2150 , Fax: +1-415-289-0402, E-Mail: leslie@avanimedia.com; Distribution: Angelika Werner, +49-30-2649-2140; Printed at: Druckhaus Humburg, Bremen; Graphic Design: Michaela Reblin. European Biotechnology Science & Industry News is only regularly available through subscription at BIOCOM AG. Annual subscription fees: € 100.00, Students € 50.00 (subject to proof of enrolment). Prices include VAT, postage & packaging. Ordered subscriptions can be cancelled within 2 weeks directly at BIOCOM AG. The subscription is initially valid for one year. Subscriptions will be renewed automatically for one more year, respectively, unless they are cancelled at least 6 weeks before the date of expiry. Failures of delivery which BIOCOM AG is not responsible for do not entitle the subscriber to delivery or reimbursement of pre-paid fees. Seat of court is Berlin, Germany. As regards contents: individually named articles are published within the sole responsibility of their respective authors. All material published is protected by copyright. No article or part thereof may be reproduced in any way or processed, copied and proliferated by electronic means without the prior written consent of the publisher. Cover Photo: © iStock Photo ® BIOCOM is a registered trademark of BIOCOM AG, Berlin, Germany.
10
N –º 12 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
INSIGHT EUROPE ESFRI
EU microbe bank Brussels/Braunschweig – Europe’s first research “infrastructure” for bacteria, fungi, viruses and cell lines kicked off at the end of November. According to Dr. Dagmar Fritzsche from the German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DSMZ), the Microbial Resource Research Infrastructure (MIRRI: www.mirri. org) “merges microbial collections and its users as well research projects.” Fritzsche is coordinating the 16 groups involved in the 5m project, which is being funded by the European Commission through its European Strategic Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) over the next three years. The overall goal of the project is to facilitate access to biological resources for research and biotechnological applications. As with other ESFRI projects such as the BBMRI, MIRRI will begin with a preparatory phase funded with EU money. In its operations phase, it will be funded mainly by the member states.
EFSA
GMO update Brussels/Parma – Europe’s food watchdog EFSA has approved new GMO varieties from agriculture giants Syngenta and Monsanto. At the end of October, the Parma-based authority greenlighted Syngenta’s Mir163 as a feedstuff. The maize is insect-tolerant due to insertion of the bacterial vip3Aa gene in the corn genome. In November, the authority also recommended the first ever drought-tolerant maize for marketing as feed and food. MON87460, which Monsanto developed in collaboration with BASF, is neither insect-resistant nor herbicide-tolerant. Prior to giving the go-ahead for the GM corn, the EFSA approved Monsanto’s GM soybean MON87705. It contains more oleic and less linolic acid, due to the insertion of a FAD2-1A/FARB1 gene fragment.
FREE EXCERPT
Heard in Brussels Why biotech needs Europe – and Europe needs biotech Brussels – It’s getting a little boring listening to conversations about the 20142020 budget. As citizens, we’re subjected to endless national bickering and pointscoring as national leaders look to secure their own positions through sounding ‘tough on Europe’, as if the EU was a strange alien beast designed to steal their money and straighten all their bananas. As a fugitive from the UK, I am particularly embarrassed, and can’t wait for them to have a referendum on in/out. At least the Brits will finally shut up afterwards. But I digress. What people overlook is the impact of a big European freeze on national development. Europe has enabled the massive development of regions that would have been unlikely to see many benefits under purely national direction. This has created the infrastructure through which science is being delivered, and a consequence of reducing this now will be to throw away much of the progress and investment we’ve made to date.
Support on the Horizon When not talking about biotech, I talk about cluster development (that’s right – I’m such a blast at parties) and right now we are witnessing a battle for survival. These precious structures are nurseries for economic returns on research. After 25 years of investment, they are creating SMEs that are coming through on promises, making the transition from discovery to clinical phases for new drugs – exactly what investment was intended to deliver. However the market is moving further away from SMEs. The gap where they need support gets wider every year. So if investors won’t come unless you have a Phase III product, how do you get there? This is where the critical support from
Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network
Horizon 2020 comes in. It must expand its reach beyond FP7, with cluster support, PPPs, later-stage trial funding, infrastructure creation, skills development and a relentless drive to support the commercialisation of great science.
Savouring the fruits of innovation If the funding falls away from Horizon 2020 as national governments reduce their input to Europe, then the countries themselves will pay the price. As national austerity reduces innovation support, Europe has in many places become the only source of assistance – both financially and strategically – when creating long-term plans as part of an international map. Kill it, and those clusters and regions that are at the cusp of economic delivery from biotechnology will shrivel, and the billions of euros invested thus far will be wasted. Right now, Europe has an opportunity to seize the market. It would be a crime if short-term national political games prevented the strengths of 27 countries from finally delivering substantial economic returns in biotech.
12
N –º 12 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
INSIGHT EUROPE
News Rare diseases resource Parma/Paris – Two years ago, the EU Council recommended interlinking existing orphan disease patient registries for epidemiological purposes (2009/872/CE). A suitable three-year funding initiative (www.epirare.eu) that kicked-off in 2011 is expected to result in a burst of initiatives for rare disease registration. The European, US, and Canadian orphan disease organisations (EURORDIS, NORD and CORD) have now published a joint declaration of key priniciples for the databases. “Rare disease patient registries are key instruments for increasing knowledge on rare diseases, supporting fundamental clinical and epidemiological research, and post-marketing surveillance of orphan drugs and treatments used off-label,” stressed EURORDIS Scientific Director Monica Ensini. The organisations emphasise that the registries should focus on diseases instead of treatments, encompass the widest geographic scope possible, and be financed through public-private partnerships. And the anonymised patient data, they say, should be linked to corresponding biomarker data to yield the greatest possible benefit for patients.
Crisis hits health budgets Brussels – Health spending in Europe has fallen for the first time since 1975, according to a joint Commission/OECD report. From an annual average growth rate of 4.6% between 2000-2009, health spending per capita in Europe fell 0.6% in 2010 according to “Health at a Glance: Europe 2012“. However, the report doesn’t show a worsening health outcome due to the financial crisis – although it adds that obesity and smoking continue to be major health risk factors.
FREE EXCERPT
HORIZON 2020
Researchers fear budget cuts
Commission President José Manuel Barroso and President of the European Council Hermann van Rompuy at the Extraordinary European Council.
Brussels – Postponed negotiations in the European Council over the EU’s 20142020 budget will not affect the timeline for the implementation of the European Commission’s ambitious innovation programme Horizon 2020. “The negotiations on the funding themes will be defined in a timely fashion in talks with the Member States,” Brussels insiders told EuroBiotechNews after the Council meeting on 22-23 November. “Only its budgets remain open until there is a new proposal that is acceptable to both the Council and the Parliament.” Scientists appear to have lobbied inadequately for their needs. Initial ideas discussed by the heads of EU Member States foresaw cutting the 80bn innovation programme’s proposed budget by 12% (about 10bn) or more in favour of agriculture and structural funds. A week before Council President Hermann van Rompuy’s budget proposal was withdrawn, 44 Nobel laureates warned in an open letter about the consequences of budget cuts to research and innovation. Over 100,000 Internet users supported their call not to slash the European Research Council (ERC) budget for excellent
fundamental research. The biotech industry was also concerned. In a worst-case scenario, frozen budgets could cut off biotech SMEs from an important source of liquidity. “Biotechnology and bio-based products can play a crucial role in helping to achieve healthcare, climate, energy, environmental and employment goals in Europe,” stressed EuropaBio’s General Secretary Nathalie Moll. “That fact was supported by the Commission when it listed biotechnology as one of six key enabling technologies that funding under Horizon 2020 should focus on.” According to Moll, “it is therefore crucial, while negotiations are ongoing, that the appropriate levels of funding continue to be allocated to biotechnology – so that Europe can attain the return on investment it urgently needs in terms of innovation, growth and job creation.” EuropaBio has strongly supported the original budget proposed by the European Commission, and is calling on the EU Parliament and Council to back the proposal. Until a new proposal is tabled in Q1/2013, however, the future budget of Horizon 2020 remains up in the air.
48
N –º 12 | Volume 11 | 2012
Euro|Biotech|News
COMPANY AND ADVERTISER INDE X A
AB Science SA (F) ……………………………… 16 AB-Biotics (E) …………………………………… 27 AbCheck s.r.o. (CR) …………………………… 28 Ablynx NV (B) ………………………………… 21 Aconitum JSC (LT) ……………………………… 38 Agennix AG (GER/USA) ……………………… 19 Agilent Technologies Inc. (UK) ………………… 28 Agilent Technologies Sweden AB ……………… 14 Akinion (S) ……………………………………… 21 Algeta ASA (N) ………………………………… 21 Almirall S. A. (E) ………………………………… 27 Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics (NL) …… 47 Anergis SA (CH) ………………………………… 16 Apeiron Biologics (A)…………………………… 22 Applied Immune Technologies (IL) …………… 45 Aptar Pharma (F) ……………………………… 47 Arecor Ltd. (UK) ………………………………… 24 AstraZeneca AB (UK/S) ………………… 8, 27, 47 Attoquant GmbH (A) …………………………… 22 Auriga Partners (F) …………………………… 24 austria wirtschaftsservice|erp-fonds (A) …… 32, 34
B
B. Braun Melsungen AG (GER)……………… 15, 40 Baltymas (LT) …………………………………… 38 BASF SE (GER) ………………………………20, 22 Bavarian Nordic A/S (DK) ……………………… 20 Bayer Healthcare AG (GER) ………………… 31, 40 Bayer Pharma AG (GER) ……………………… 15 Bayern Innovativ GmbH (GER) ……………… CP3 BB Biotech (CH) ……………………………… 18 Beatica AB (S) ………………………………… 21 Berlin Partner GmbH (GER) …………………… 40 Berlin-Chemie AG (GER) ……………………… 40 BIO M Biotech Cluster Development (GER) … 36 Bio-Prodict BV (NL) …………………………… 14 BIO.NRW (GER) ………………………………… 35 Biocentras UAB (LT) …………………………… 38 BIOCOM AG (GER) …………………………… 30 Bioeksma UAB (LT) …………………………… 38 Biogasol ApS (DK) ……………………………… 21 Biogen Idec (USA) ……………………………… 19 BIOK lab (LT) …………………………………… 38 Bionaturis (E) …………………………………… 27 Biotechpharma UAB (LT) ……………………… 38 BioTOP Berlin-Brandenburg (GER) …………… 40 Biotronik GmbH & Co. (GER) ………………… 41 Biovex (USA) …………………………………… 47 Biovitrum AB (S) ……………………………… 47 BioWin – The Health Cluster of Wallonia (B) …… 9 Bone Therapeutics (B) ………………………… 25 Brain AG (GER) ………………………………… 22
C
Cardio3 Biosciences (B) …………………… 16, 25 Carl Zeiss Meditec AG (GER) ………………… 41 CDC Enterprises (USA) ………………………… 24 Celgene International Sàrl (CH) ……………… 16 Celtic Pharmaceutical Holdings LP (UK) …… 8, 31 Chi-Med (VRC) ………………………………… 23 Clavis Pharma ASA (N) ………………………… 21 Close Brothers Seydler AG (GER) …………… 17 Clovis Oncology (USA) ………………………… 21 Cobra Biologics (UK) …………………………… 45 CreaBILIS Therapeutics S.p.A. (LUX) ………… 24 Curevac GmbH (GER) ………………………… 23 Cyclacel Limited (UK) ………………………… 24
D
Dafra Pharma International N.V. (B)…………… 15 deCode genetics (IS) ………………………… 20
DFJ-Esprit (UK) ………………………………… Distributed Bio LLC (USA)……………………… Dompe Farmaceutici S.p.A. (I) ………………… Dow Agrosciences LLC (USA) …………………
25 28 27 14
E
Eckert & Ziegler (GER) ………………………… 41 ecoplus. Niederösterr. Wirtschaftsagentur … 32, 37 Eli Lilly (USA) ………………………………… 8, 47 Emergent Product Development UK Ltd. …… 15 Enterprise Lithuania (LT) ……………………… 38 European Biotechnology Network (B)………… 13 ExonHit (F) ……………………………………… 25 Exosome Diagnostics GmbH (USA/GER) …… 47
F/G
Fermentas International UAB (LT) …………… 38 Fjord Capital Partners Ltd (N) ………………… 21 Forbion Capital Partners (NL) ………………… 47 Gedeon Richter Ltd. (HUN) …………………… 28 Genfit SA (F) …………………………………… 16 GlaxoSmithKline (UK) ……………………8, 27, 50 Glide Pharma Technologies Ltd. (UK) ………… 24 Glycotope GmbH (GER) ……………………… 41 GPC Biotech AG (GER) ………………………… 19 Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte (GER) … 14 GP-Pharm S.A. (E) ……………………………… 24 Grindeks (LV) …………………………………… 27
H
Herkules Private Equity Fund (N)……………… 20 High-Tech Gründerfonds Management (GER) 17 Hospira One 2 One (USA) …………………… CP4 Human.technology Styria (A) ………………… 32 Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd. (HK) ……………… 23
I/J
Indena S.p.A. (I) ………………………………… 26 InGen BioSciences Group (USA) ……………… 25 INGENIATRICS TECNOLOGIAS S.L. (E) ……… 27 IXICO Ltd. (UK) ………………………………… 24 Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. (B) ……………… 21 Johnson & Johnson (USA) …………………… 3, 8
K
KalVista Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (UK) …………… Kapital Consulting LLC (USA) ………………… Karolinska Development AB (S) ……………… Kiadis Pharma BV (NL) ………………………… KMR Group (USA) ………………………………
24 47 21 25 31
L Lanthio Pharma B.V. (NL) ……………………… 24 Life Sciences Cluster Tirol (A) ………………… 32 Life Sciences Partners (NL) …………………… 25 Life Technologies Corp. (USA) …………………… 7 LISA Vienna Region (A) ……………………… 32, 39
M
Macrogen Europe (NL) ………………………… 23 MDxHealth SA (B) …………………………… 18, 50 Medimmune Ltd (UK) ………………………… 44 Medscinet IT (LT) ……………………………… 38 Medtronic Inc. (USA) ……………………………… 3 Micromet AG (GER/USA) ……………………… 47 Mig Verwaltungs AG (GER) …………………… 22 Modern Biosciences plc (UK) ………………… 24 Monsanto (USA) ……………………………… 10 Monteil Cosmetics International GmbH (GER) 22 MorphoSys AG (GER) ………………………… 24
FREE EXCERPT
N Nestle Health Science SA (CH) ……………… 23 Nestle S.A. (CH) ……………………………… 23 Noscira S.A. (E) ………………………………… 27 Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics S.r.l. (I) …… 15 Novo Nordisk A/S (DK) ……………………… 8, 21 Nutrition Science Partners Ltd. (CH) ………… 23 NYCOMED Austria GmbH (A) ………………… 15
O/P
OncoDNA SA (B) ……………………………… 24 Oxford BioMedica plc (UK) …………………… 16 Pergamun (S) …………………………………… 21 Pfizer (USA) …………………………………… 14 Pfizer Deutschland GmbH (GER) …………… 40, 41 Pharmalink AB (SE) …………………………… 47 Pharming Group N.V. (NL) …………………… 25 Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (USA) …… 14 PriceWaterhouseCoopers (GER) …………… 31, 47 Profarma UAB (LT) …………………………… 38 Profilomic SA (F) ……………………………… 14 Pronova Biopharma (N) ……………………20, 22 Prosensa BV (NL) ……………………………… 15 PsiOxus Therapeutics (UK) …………………… 24
Q/R
Quest for Growth (NL) ………………………… 25 RCC Laboratoris Ltd. (IND) …………………… 22 Rekin International JSC (LT) …………………… 38 Roche AG (CH) ……………………………8, 16, 47 Roche Diagnostics GmbH (GER) ……………… 44 Roche Glycart (CH) …………………………… 46
S
Sanofi SA (F) …………………………… 15, 16, 47 Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (GER) … 40, 41 Santaris Pharma A/S (DK/USA) ……………… 25 Schering-Plough Ltd. (UK) ……………………… 3 Sekisui Medical (JP) …………………………… 22 Seventure Partners (F) ………………………… 24 Sicor Biotech UAB (LT) ………………………… 38 Siemens AG (GER) …………………………… 41 Smith & Nephew (GER) ……………………… 47 Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB (S) …………… 19 Sweetwater Energy (USA) …………………… 21 Syngenta AG (CH) ……………………………… 10
T
Tabarca Technologies (E) ……………………… 26 Takeda Pharma GmbH (GER) ………… 15, 40, 41 Teva Canada Ltd. (CDN) ……………………… 14 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (IL) …… 14, 38 Theravectys (F) ………………………………… 50 ThermoFisher Scientific (USA/LT) ………… 38, 41 Thrombogenics (B) …………………………… 17 TSB Innovationsagentur Berlin GmbH (GER) … 40 TxCell S.A. (F)…………………………………… 24
U/V
Unipension (DK) ……………………………… 21 uniQure BV (NL) ……………………… 24, 47, 50 Virostatics srl (IT/USA) ………………………… 27 Virosure GmbH (A) …………………………… 22 Vivacell Biotechnology Espana S.L. …………… 26 Vontobel AG (CH) ……………………………… 18 Vorto Gama JSC (LT) …………………………… 38
X/Z
Xcellerex Inc. (USA) …………………………… CP2 Xenon Pharmaceuticals Inc. (CDN) …………… 47 ZAB Brandenburg Ec. Dev. Board (GER) ……33, 40 Zeltia-Group (E) ……………………………… 11, 27
XL -RXIVREXMSREP 'SRKVIWW ERH )\LMFMXMSR
4LEVQE (IZIPSTQIRX
*SSH 2YXVMXMSR
¦ 1EVGL 8IGLRMWGLI 9RMZIVWMXmX 1 RGLIR +EVGLMRK -RJSVQEXMSR ERH VIKMWXVEXMSR
[[[ FE]IVR MRRSZEXMZ HI µ W
-RHYWXVMEP &MSXIGLRSPSK]
4MGXYVIW 6SGLI *SXSPME )ZSRMO -RHYWXVMIW %+
*SVYQ 0MJI 7GMIRGI
Parenteral Contract Manufacturing Service of Hospira
Our comfort zone is global parenteral manufacturing t Biologics t )JHIMZ 1PUFOU %SVHT t $ZUPUPYJDT
t #FUBMBDUBNT t $POUSPMMFE 4VCTUBODFT t 4UFSJMF $PNQPVOEJOH t 4JOHMF 6TF 5FDIOPMPHZ
t -ZPQIJMJ[BUJPO t (MPCBM 3FHVMBUPSZ 4FSWJDFT t 21 3FMFBTF
Zagreb, Croatia
Chennai, India
Discover your comfort zone at one2onecmo.com (FU ZPVS DVTUPN SFQPSU POMJOF PS DPOUBDU 0OF 0OF $BMM PS PS F NBJM POF POF!IPTQJSB DPN
Your Parenteral Comfort Zone Parenteral Contract Manufacturing Service of Hospira
P11-3517A-Jan., 12