Search company, investor...
ViaCyte company logo

ViaCyte

viacyte.com

Founded Year

1999

Stage

Acquired | Acquired

Total Raised

$341.6M

Valuation

$0000 

About ViaCyte

ViaCyte is a regenerative medicine company focused on stem cell-derived cell replacement therapies as a functional cure for all type 1 diabetes and treatment for insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes. The company was founded in 1999 and is based in San Diego, California. On July 11th, 2022, ViaCyte was acquired by Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

Headquarters Location

3550 General Atomics Court

San Diego, California, 92121,

United States

858-455-3708

Missing: ViaCyte's Product Demo & Case Studies

Promote your product offering to tech buyers.

Reach 1000s of buyers who use CB Insights to identify vendors, demo products, and make purchasing decisions.

Missing: ViaCyte's Product & Differentiators

Don’t let your products get skipped. Buyers use our vendor rankings to shortlist companies and drive requests for proposals (RFPs).

Expert Collections containing ViaCyte

Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.

ViaCyte is included in 3 Expert Collections, including Regenerative Medicine.

R

Regenerative Medicine

1,818 items

Regenerative medicine refers to the process of activating, replacing, engineering or regenerating human genetic material, cells, tissues or organs to restore normal function. It also includes bioengineered tissues used for in vitro testing (e.g. organ-on-a-chip, organoids).

B

Biopharma Tech

15,535 items

Companies involved in the research, development, and commercialization of chemically- or biologically-derived therapeutic & theranostic drugs. Excludes vitamins/supplements, CROs/clinical trial services.

D

Diabetes

2,043 items

ViaCyte Patents

ViaCyte has filed 1 patent.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Stem cells
  • Transcription factors
  • Biotechnology
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

6/25/2019

9/20/2022

Transcription factors, Stem cells, Developmental genes and proteins, Clusters of differentiation, Human proteins

Grant

Application Date

6/25/2019

Grant Date

9/20/2022

Title

Related Topics

Transcription factors, Stem cells, Developmental genes and proteins, Clusters of differentiation, Human proteins

Status

Grant

Latest ViaCyte News

Antitrust & Competition Life Sciences Quarterly Update - Q3 2022

Nov 10, 2022

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=14db16fc-f261-40e8-9ac7-7b28a94ef6e8" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> The third quarter in the life sciences space showed that business is generally proceeding as usual, with large pharma players successfully acquiring or licensing in clinical stage assets without running into antitrust delays. That said, even these inherently procompetitive deals appear to be receiving at least some attention from the agencies. As such, being ready for scrutiny should help avoid extensive and costly reviews. Indeed, a recent trio of mergers within the sickle cell disease space shows the importance of adequate preparation and engagement. Antitrust agency activity in other sectors is also instructive. The FTC’s challenge to the Meta/Within merger could portend difficulties for the life sciences space, but recent court defeats could temper the agencies’ appetite for challenges based on novel and/or more aggressive theories, including potential competition. Business (Largely) As Usual As noted, business is largely proceeding as usual in the life sciences space. Over the third quarter, several large pharma players closed acquisitions of clinical stage or otherwise smaller commercial players, with lower-risk deals closing relatively quickly and a higher-risk deal receiving expected scrutiny. BMS, Pfizer, and GSK all completed relatively lower risk deals in a timely manner, while Vertex is likely encountering an extended review for a higher-risk deal. GSK/Sierra First is GSK’s $1.9 billion acquisition of Sierra Oncology, announced on April 12, with the deal closing on July 1. Sierra’s only asset is momelotinib, a promising JAK inhibitor for the treatment of the blood cancer myelofibrosis currently undergoing FDA review. GSK does have a home-made hematology asset, Blenrep, but it is an antibody-drug conjugate inhibiting BCMA to kill myeloma cells (and is indicated for multiple myeloma). The two assets likely were properly considered to be complementary rather than competitive. In any event, both JAK inhibition and BCMA inhibition are relatively crowded spaces. Pfizer/Biohaven Pfizer announced its $11.6 billion all-cash acquisition of Biohaven on May 10. Biohaven’s core asset is Nurtec ODT (rimegepant), a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitor approved for acute migraines in February 2020 and episodic migraine in June 2021. Given Pfizer’s divestiture of a significant portion of its own neuroscience division in 2018, [1] Nurtec’s relatively low share in oral migraine (5% in 2021), [2] and the presence of other large players like Eli Lilly in the space, the antitrust risk of the transaction was relatively low. As a result, Pfizer appeared to have little trouble clearing its transaction, reporting in a late July 8-K that it received all required antitrust clearances to close the transaction before closing on October 3. BMS/Turning Point Third, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) announced its $4.1 billion all-cash acquisition of Turning Point Therapeutics (Turning Point) on June 3, with the transaction closing on August 15. Turning Point’s primary asset is repotrectinib, a mid-stage candidate as a treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that targets the ROS1 and NTRK gene mutations. Although BMS does have several therapies that are either approved or in development for NSCLC, none of its assets target the ROS1 gene. With the parties making their HSR filings at the end of July and closing in mid-August, the transaction appears to have encountered little agency resistance, although the gap between announcement and filing may indicate pre-filing agency engagement. Vertex/ViaCyte The most recent deal, Vertex’s $320 million proposed acquisition of ViaCyte announced on July 11, is also likely the riskiest and one potentially facing significant agency scrutiny. The transaction centers around ViaCyte’s stem-cell based treatment for type 1 diabetes, known as PEC-01. PEC-01 is a form of islet therapy, where stem-cells are grown into pancreatic cells outside of the body. These cells are then implanted into patients, where they mature into beta and other islet cells in order to monitor glucose and produce insulin, eliminating the need for daily insulin injections. But unlike the previous three deals, the parties are direct and close competitors. Vertex has a rival islet therapy asset in development (VX-880), and one of ViaCyte’s ongoing trials would remove the need for immunosuppression, a key downside of islet therapies in development. Third-party reactions reflect how this deal is riskier, with one analysis stating Vertex is “clearing out the [] competition” as the two companies’ type 1 diabetes treatments are “neck-and-neck [in] clinical development.” [3] Vertex appears to acknowledge this reality, with the company’s August 4 8-K filing stating it believed the transaction would close “later this year [2022],” despite an early July announcement. These four transactions show how business is largely proceeding as usual. Deals with minimal technology and/or mechanistic overlap are still clearing with relative ease, while deals involving more direct horizontal competition are likely facing standard scrutiny from the agencies. But Sickle Cell Disease Case Study Shows Importance of Preparation But three other recent acquisitions by different players in the sickle-cell disease (SCD) space show the importance of preparation and agency engagement for completing a transaction in a timely manner. CSL, Pfizer, and Novo Nordisk, all large pharma players, each acquired companies in SCD. Normally, when multiple transactions occur in the same space within the same year, the antitrust agencies would increase scrutiny in-line with the increasing consolidation. In SCD, however, only in the CSL transaction (the first in the series) did the FTC engage in a lengthy investigation. CSL first announced its $11.7 billion acquisition of Vifor Pharma on December 14, 2021. The FTC’s investigation delayed closing until August 9, 2022, nearly nine months. The FTC focused in on the existing horizontal overlap in the parties’ SCD pipeline and a general horizontal overlap between Vifor’s iron-deficiency hematology franchise and CSL’s blood-plasma portfolio. The FTC conducted initiated an investigation into the SCD overlap despite the facts that both companies’ SCD assets were very early stage, there have been recent FDA approvals of several new SCD treatments over the past five years, and there is a fairly robust pipeline of other novel therapies (ranging from small-molecule to gene therapy) by a number of players in development. By contrast, Pfizer’s $5.4 billion acquisition of Global Blood Therapeutics (GBT) and Novo Nordisk’s  $1.1 billion acquisition of Forma Therapeutics cleared HSR after their respective HSR waiting periods (30 and 15 days, respectively) despite the fact that both combinations involved commercial or later stage clinical assets compared to the CSL transaction. Indeed, GBT is considered one of the leaders in the SCD space, with Oxbryta approved in 2019 and several other promising therapies in various stages of its pipeline. Pfizer had Phase 1 assets at the time of acquisition. Similarly, the core asset of Forma Therapeutics [4] is etavopivat, which is an oral PKR activator in Phase 2/3 trials indicated for SCD. At the time of acquisition, Novo (like Pfizer) also had an early stage SCD asset in its pipeline. Thus, despite three deals occurring in SCD within a matter of months, only the first received was delayed by a lengthy agency investigation. While the industry may be more consolidated, the FTC did not see a reason to do a deeper investigation during the initial waiting periods of the latter two transactions. The Specter of Meta/Within Still Looms, But No Life Sciences Action Yet On July 27, 2022, the FTC filed a complaint seeking to block Meta’s acquisition of the virtual reality (VR) app maker, Within. In its complaint, the agency relied on two horizontal theories of harm. First, that Meta is a potential entrant into the VR dedicated fitness space due to its size, resources, and capabilities (even if it did not have an ongoing pipeline project for this purpose). Second, the FTC alleged the transaction would eliminate competition between Meta and Within in the VR fitness app market. [5] Theories regarding potential competition would be broadly applicable to the life sciences space given the significant resources of the major players. Under the FTC’s Meta/Within theory of potential harm, any large life science company would likely be considered a potential entrant into a particular market simply by virtue of their size, resources, and very likely the capability to develop a competitor to the relevant start-up’s asset. Notably, however, the agencies’ more aggressive antitrust theories have so far met a frosty reception in court, in particular as those theories bump up against real-world evidence. In UnitedHealth/Change, the DOJ failed to convince the court that, post-acquisition, UnitedHealth would materially divert from its pre-deal (and longstanding) course of conduct with respect to third-party customers, with the court specifically finding that the agencies must do more than allege “things may change.” [6] The FTC ran into a similar issue in Illumina, where the administrative law judge found the FTC’s arguments about post-merger conduct to rely on “unwarranted leaps of logic.” [7] At bottom, the string of court defeats may temper the agencies’ appetite to bring cases based on more speculative future conduct, or at least be more discerning in the cases they ultimately choose to litigate. How about BIG Pharma Mergers? Would the BMS/Celgene Acquisition Happen Today? We have not seen any mega mergers in the pharmaceutical space since 2019. There could be many causes for that but one may be that the parties are aware of the challenging enforcement environment. A thought experiment with a hypothetical is instructive. Given the agencies’ recent focus on future conduct and potential competition, it is fair to question whether today’s FTC would let BMS close its 2019 $74 billion acquisition of rival Celgene without litigation or a significant divestment beyond the infamous Otezla divestiture. At the time of the merger, BMS had two leading drugs for the treatment of solid tumors (led by its blockbuster Opdivo therapy), while Celgene had leading treatments for hematological cancers (Revlimid and Pomalyst). Although not directly overlapping in terms of cancer types, it is easy to imagine today’s FTC challenging the transaction based on BMS’ resources and related oncology expertise. Stated differently, could the FTC have alleged, as it has done in Meta/Within, that BMS was extremely well-positioned to enter de novo and/or was presumed by others to be a likely entrant such that its decision to buy into the hematological cancer treatment space deprives the market of its own entry and the disciplining effect that its perceived potential entry had on current participants. Whether this argument succeeds in court, however, remains to be seen. [4] Forma Therapeutics was represented by Goodwin (https://www.goodwinlaw.com/news/2022/09/09_01-forma-therapeutics-acquisition). [5] The FTC amended its initial complaint on October 7, 2022, dropping its claim that the transaction would lessen actual competition for VR fitness apps.

ViaCyte Web Traffic

Rank
Page Views per User (PVPU)
Page Views per Million (PVPM)
Reach per Million (RPM)
CBI Logo

ViaCyte Rank

ViaCyte Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

  • When was ViaCyte founded?

    ViaCyte was founded in 1999.

  • Where is ViaCyte's headquarters?

    ViaCyte's headquarters is located at 3550 General Atomics Court, San Diego.

  • What is ViaCyte's latest funding round?

    ViaCyte's latest funding round is Acquired.

  • How much did ViaCyte raise?

    ViaCyte raised a total of $341.6M.

  • Who are the investors of ViaCyte?

    Investors of ViaCyte include Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Sanderling Ventures, TPG Capital, RA Capital Management, Bain Capital and 24 more.

  • Who are ViaCyte's competitors?

    Competitors of ViaCyte include DiscoveryBioMed, Five Prime Therapeutics, Primorigen Biosciences, IRX Therapeutics, CytoBioscience and 12 more.

Compare ViaCyte to Competitors

C
CellAura Technologies

CellAura Technologies is a spin out company from the University of Nottingham, combining world-renowned expertise in the fields of synthetic chemistry and molecular pharmacology to produce high quality fluoresent G-protein coupled receptor ligands for use in molecular pharmacology and imaging at the single cell level.

I
IntelCell

IntelCell markets a product platform engineered to modernize research techniques for cell and tissue growth. The company's first product, Cell Drive, replaces traditional cell culture equipment by providing an unprecedented level of usability and sophistication for the user. For scientists whose research depends upon live cell culture, Cell Drive aims to offer a compact, precision, cell growth system that increases experimental control, aims to improve sterility, aims to provide digitization of data and methods, and aims to reduce human error and labor costs.

A
ARETA INTERNATIONAL SRL

Areta International was founded, with totally private financial support, by Dr. Maria Luisa Nolli in autumn 1999 as a spin-off of cell biology Laboratories of Lepetit Research Center, part of multinational companies, where she had a twenty years experience as scientist and team leader. nnThe company was born to cover the gap existing between the excellent basic research and the poor development of discoveries, with a view of helping customers to transform research projects in new potential biodrugs. nn nn

DC Biosciences Logo
DC Biosciences

DC Biosciences, formerly Dundee Cell Products, provides pharmaceutical and biotech companies with novel technologies and proteomics services to accelerate the development of safer drugs.

C
CellCura

CellCura, Inc. is a company dedicated to the development of equipment and products for use in assisted reproductive technology (ART) and stem cell research.

P
Plectix Biosystems

Plectix BioSystems Inc. is focussed on approaches for overcoming challenges faced by biologists in the complex world of cell signaling.

Discover the right solution for your team

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on vendors, products, partnerships, and patents to help your team find their next technology solution.

Request a demo

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.