About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Let's Start Off the Meeting With An Ad, OK? | Main | Tau Spreads On Its Own? »

February 6, 2012

Academia and Industry, Suing Each Other

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This is not the sort of academic-industry interaction I had in mind. There's a gigantic lawsuit underway between Agios and the Abramson Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, alleging intellectual property theft. There are plenty more details at PatentBaristas:

According to the complaint filed in the US District Court Southern District Of New York, the Institute was created by an agreement between The Abramson Family Foundation and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. The Foundation donated over $110 Million Dollars to the Institute with the condition that the money was to be used to explore new and different approaches to cancer treatment.

Dr. Thompson later created a for-profit corporation that he concealed from the Institute. After a name change, that entity became the Defendant Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Thompson did not disclose to the Institute that at least $261 million had been obtained by Agios for what was described as its “innovative cancer metabolism research platform” – i.e., the description of Dr. Thompson’s work at the Institute. Dr. Thompson did not disclose that Agios was going to sell to Celgene Corporation an exclusive option to develop any drugs resulting from the cancer metabolism research platform.

Such are the accusations. There's more of Thompson's defense in this New York Times article:

Three people with knowledge of Dr. Thompson’s version of events, two of whom would speak only on condition of anonymity because of the litigation, said that the University of Pennsylvania knew about Dr. Thompson’s involvement with Agios and even discussed licensing patents to the company, though no agreement was reached.
“When you start a company like this, you want to try to dominate the field,” said Lewis C. Cantley, another founder of Agios and the director of the cancer center at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “The goal was to get as many patents as possible, and it was frustrating that we weren’t able to get any from Penn.”

Michael J. Cleare, executive director of Penn’s Center for Technology Transfer, declined to discuss whether negotiations had been held but said, “Yes, Penn knew about Agios.”

So, as the lawyers over at PatentBaristas correctly note, this is all going to come down to what happened when. And that's going to be determined during the discovery process - emails, meeting minutes, memos, text messages, whatever can establish who told what to whom. If there's something definitive, the whole case could end up being dismissed (or settled) before anything close to a trial occurs - in fact, that would be my bet. But that's assuming that something definite was transferred at all:

A crucial question, some patent law and technology transfer specialists said, could be whether Dr. Thompson provided patented technology to Agios or merely insights.

“If somebody goes out and forms a company and doesn’t take patented intellectual property — only brings knowledge, know-how, that sort of thing — we wouldn’t make any claims to it,” said Lita Nelsen, director of the technology licensing office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In its complaint, the Abramson institute does not cite any specific patents. It says Penn did not pursue the matter because Dr. Thompson had told the university that his role in Agios did not involve anything subject to the university’s patent policies. The lawsuit says the institute did not find out about Dr. Thompson’s role in Agios until late 2011.

There will probably be room to argue about what was transferred, which could get expensive. That accusation of not finding out about Agios until 2011, though, can't be right, since he's mentioned all over their press releases and meeting presentations at least two years before that. But no matter how this comes out, this is not the way to build trust. Not quite.

Comments (6) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Academia (vs. Industry) | Cancer | Patents and IP


1. Binary on February 6, 2012 1:00 PM writes...

This is the alleged theft that you know about. On the positive side at least an American company was funded with the info.

Chinese and Indian graduate students are transferring billions of dollars of intellectual property to their homelands as we speak.

The US taxpayer gets zilch, while the faculty could really care less. The USA is turning into a police state for the typical citizen but there seems to be no problem in handing over the lab keys to foreign spies.

What's being done about it? Nada.
Cheap labor oh wow! No downside for us.

Permalink to Comment

2. biotechbaumer on February 6, 2012 1:10 PM writes...

Seems like this case is about more than simply IP. PatentBaristas pulls out the legal agreement between Thompson and the institute where it says that even 'non-patentable' things like know-how, trade secrets, etc. are property of the Institute. In this case, not sure how he is going to be able to dodge this suit. Pretty much anything that came out of his lab at Penn would not be usable at Agios. But it should be noted that Thompson never worked on (or at least never published) on the two lead programs at Agios, PKM2 and IDH1/2. So at least those programs appear to be homefree...

Permalink to Comment

3. Anonymous on February 6, 2012 1:30 PM writes...

If you squint really really hard to read between the lines of the lawsuit, you can very clearly make out the following words:

"We donated >$100 million dollars to an institute that you controlled. You spent that money to advance your own academic career and personal wealth, and carefully maneuvered to avoid giving any of the money back to the institute in the form of royalties or licensing fees. When the money we donated ran out, you left for a different job. We think you are scum."

Permalink to Comment

4. milkshake on February 6, 2012 4:02 PM writes...

Even if it turns out that the Abramson family who underwrote some of his research has no legal case (and they may have) a protracted litigation can become a nasty problem for Agios, if it delays their licensing deals by creating uncertainty about the IP ownership. For example Celgene might re-consider and pull out. It may be just cheaper for Agios to pay them off. (And if Agios goes under the institute gets nothing). So I would expect few rounds of bloodcurdling posturing followed by a generous settlement.

Permalink to Comment

5. Anonymous on February 7, 2012 12:19 AM writes...

@ 4

Can Agios actually pay out a settlement? It's a start up. Would Third Rock and the other Agios investors be tasked with the payment? If so, the downstream effects will be bad for the future of biotech, as the venture capital for new ventures will quickly dry up.

Permalink to Comment

6. Pope on February 7, 2012 12:21 AM writes...

I wanted you to comment on the new resveratrol study revealing its potential mechanism.

Permalink to Comment


Remember Me?


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

The Last Post
The GSK Layoffs Continue, By Proxy
The Move is Nigh
Another Alzheimer's IPO
Cutbacks at C&E News
Sanofi Pays to Get Back Into Oncology
An Irresponsible Statement About Curing Cancer
Oliver Sacks on Turning Back to Chemistry