Lilly launching new venture capital fund

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. is establishing a new venture capital fund that would seek to acquire experimental drugs from outside researchers and use Lilly’s Chorus unit to decide if they are promising enough to launch large, expensive human trials.

Lilly would then have “preferential access” to acquire the molecules itself and add them to its pipeline, said Lilly CEO John Lechleiter during a presentation to investors this morning in New York.

Lilly’s Chorus subsidiary, founded in 2002, has reduced the time and cost to figure out whether an experimental drug molecule affects a certain illness. Chorus has done this by using outside firms for 80 percent of its work, as well as pushing to identify proteins in the body, or biomarkers, that show a drug’s effectiveness sooner than patients and doctors could report manually.

Lechleiter said Lilly would also use “other alternative development engines” to decide whether the experimental drugs are promising for large human trials, something known in the drug industry as “proof of concept.”

Lilly spokesman Mark Taylor said the company would release further details about the fund in January.

“It continues on with the FIPNet strategy,” said Taylor, referring to Lilly’s efforts to use outside researchers and developers to share in the risk and reward of developing new medicines. He added, “It gets us in on the ground level.”

Lilly is not a stranger to the venture capital world. In 2001, it launched Lilly Ventures to invest in companies that it thought could produce a handsome return. It also looked to invest in companies that were developing technologies related to Lilly’s business.

Lilly has put $200 million in Lilly Ventures, including a fresh $25 million investment earlier this year.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.