R&D talent cluster locations drive life science U.S. patent approvals
By Mia Burns
Innovation is more necessary than ever in the United States’ post-patent-cliff market, as chronicled in the annual Jones Lang LaSalle Life Sciences Cluster Report. A way to measure locations that have the right mix of talent, funding, and critical mass is to track patent activity. Although Boston is consistently ranked as the top life sciences geographic cluster overall, Massachusetts is outpaced by both California and Minnesota in the registration of life science patent approvals, according to data from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.
The Boston Marathon bombings, which occurred in April of this year, are not expected to affect the city’s standing as an R&D hub, says Erin Bovee, senior researcher on the report. “We really feel that Boston is such a mature and established cluster,” she told R&D Pharma Business Connect. “It has a huge concentration of companies. Just the power of the Boston market even outside of the life sciences market and everything we really think that it will be able to prevail despite the unfortunate recent events. We’re not really concerned about it.”
“Not coincidentally, all of the top 10 states for life science patent approvals are home to top life sciences market clusters—areas where intellectual capital, funds and facilities for this industry are thriving,” said Richard McBlaine, International Director on the Life Sciences team at Jones Lang LaSalle. “Top patent-producing states include a particularly strong base of R&D facilities and productivity, in addition to the other factors that drive the industry as a whole.”
Some companies have cut back on R&D spending, while others have increased. “Across the board different companies are making different decisions about how much they want to spend compared to 2012 on R&D,” says Bovee. “The general trend that we are seeing across the board is that companies are generally trying to cut overhead costs related to the non-core aspects of their business. What we are hearing from a lot of these companies is that they want to make strategic cuts in certain areas so that they can then funnel more money back into R&D because their next big product is only going to come from having enough money and dedicated resources in that R&D component particularly with biological drugs.”
Life Sciences U.S. Patent Approvals Driven by R&D Talent Cluster Locations
Innovation is more necessary than ever in the United States’ post-patent-cliff market, as chronicled in the annual Jones Lang LaSalle Life Sciences Cluster Report. A way to measure locations that have the right mix of talent, funding, and critical mass is to track patent activity. Although Boston is consistently ranked as the top life sciences geographic cluster overall, Massachusetts is outpaced by both California and Minnesota in the registration of life science patent approvals, according to data from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.
The Boston Marathon bombings, which occurred in April of this year, are not expected to affect the city’s standing as an R&D hub, says Erin Bovee, senior researcher on the report. “We really feel that Boston is such a mature and established cluster,” she told R&D Pharma Business Connect. “It has a huge concentration of companies. Just the power of the Boston market even outside of the life sciences market and everything we really think that it will be able to prevail despite the unfortunate recent events. We’re not really concerned about it.”
“Not coincidentally, all of the top 10 states for life science patent approvals are home to top life sciences market clusters—areas where intellectual capital, funds and facilities for this industry are thriving,” said Richard McBlaine, International Director on the Life Sciences team at Jones Lang LaSalle. “Top patent-producing states include a particularly strong base of R&D facilities and productivity, in addition to the other factors that drive the industry as a whole.”
Some companies have cut back on R&D spending, while others have increased. “Across the board different companies are making different decisions about how much they want to spend compared to 2012 on R&D,” says Bovee. “The general trend that we are seeing across the board is that companies are generally trying to cut overhead costs related to the non-core aspects of their business. What we are hearing from a lot of these companies is that they want to make strategic cuts in certain areas so that they can then funnel more money back into R&D because their next big product is only going to come from having enough money and dedicated resources in that R&D component particularly with biological drugs.”
Life Sciences U.S. Patent Approvals Driven by R&D Talent Cluster Locations
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario