Public biotech company Atreca is cutting its headquarters lease in Silicon Valley, deepening the uncertainty around the growth of life sciences real estate. But the property’s landlord, and one of the sector’s biggest owners and developers, Alexandria Real Estate Equities (ARE), says it’s already in talks with a replacement tenant.
Atreca, a clinical-stage company focused on developing therapeutics, announced it negotiated an agreement to ditch its lease with ARE in San Carlos, Calif., as part of its ongoing efforts to lower operating expenses (which also includes cutting 40 percent of its workforce).
The deal commenced July 2019 and represented approximately $13 million of annual expenditures. Atreca will pay $5 million to cut the lease and vacate the premises by Nov. 30, “and will be evaluating options for facilities sized to its current operational needs.”
“The agreement to terminate our lease agreement dramatically reduces our ongoing operating expenses and helps to extend our cash runway through the first quarter of 2024,” John Orwin, president and CEO of Atreca, said in a statement.
ARE is facing growing concern about the longer-term investment viability of life sciences space, particularly with the use of adjoining office spaces. Activist hedge fund Land & Buildings in June raised alarms about ARE by pointing to a 50 percent drop in attendance at its medical office properties after the pandemic. L&B specifically identified massive declines at ARE buildings throughout major life sciences markets.
In reaction to Atreca ditching its lease, Jonathan Litt — founder and chief investment officer at L&B — said “Shoes are a-droppin’ at office/lab REIT Alexandria,” via his X account. However, Joel Marcus, executive chairman and founder of ARE, told Commercial Observer via email this week that the landlord is in negotiations to backfill the entire space that Atreca is vacating. He declined to disclose the name of the pending tenant.
The Pasadena-based life sciences REIT is undergoing a “value harvesting” or “asset recycling program,” by unloading more than $1.6 billion in assets deemed not integral to its mega-campus strategy.
Gregory Cornfield can be reached at gcornfield@commercialobserver.com.
Eating disorders often start at a younger age, but they don’t solely affect this population. Recognizing this, virtual eating disorder support company Equip announced Tuesday that it is now treating adults as well as adolescents. The company also announced an investment from General Catalyst, which helped expand its platform to adults. The amount was not disclosed.
“There is a very pervasive, really dense stereotype that eating disorders only affect 15- to 25-year-old thin, White girls,” said Dr. Erin Parks, chief clinical officer and co-founder of Equip, in an interview. “That is true, it does affect them. But it is not only them.”
She added that because so few people have access to treatment, many older adults have had their eating disorder for a very long time and need support.
San Diego-based Equip, which was founded in 2019, previously focused on those ages 6 to 24. The startup is now expanding to serve people of all ages. The virtual company operates in all 50 states and is in-network with several insurance companies, including Aetna, Elevance, Optum, Cigna and UnitedHealthcare. It connects patients with a care team that includes a therapist, dietitian, physician and peer and family mentor.
Different ages require different kinds of treatment, according to Parks. With its younger patients, the company uses family-based treatment, in which the family is brought in to help care for the patient. For adults, the company is using a method called enhanced cognitive behavioral therapy, which is a highly individualized treatment that addresses thoughts, feelings and behaviors affecting the patient’s eating disorder.
Parks said that when it comes to adults, individual treatment is often the best way to go because they may not have a support group. Sometimes when adults have been sick for a long time, they’ve “pushed away” a lot of their family and peers, or they may be too busy with work to build that support group.
There are other virtual solutions for eating disorders as well, including Arise and Within. Arise offers coaching with a care advocate who has lived experience with an eating disorder, therapy, nutrition counseling, group support and psychiatry. Within provides access to a care team that includes dietitians, therapists, nurses and peers.
The expansion to adults was powered by a recent investment by General Catalyst. In total, Equip has raised more than $75 million. With the funding, the company brought on a new president, Nikia Bergan. It also updated its technology and trained its providers in treating adults. In addition, it’s planning to use the funding to gain more Medicaid contracts, Parks said.
Equip considers itself an alternative to brick-and-mortar eating disorder treatments, which often require patients to stay at the treatment facility for a certain period. Parks said the benefit of a virtual program is that patients can be treated as they live their normal lives.
“[If you take] someone out of their life and give them a bunch of skills, then all of the sudden they plop back into their life and have all these triggers that they aren’t equipped to deal with,” Parks argued. “One of the great things about getting treatment while still being able to go to school, still being able to go to your job, still being able to parent your kids, is that you get to work with your providers on your real-life triggers as they come up.”
Parks is likely looking to replicate the positive results it claims to have achieved in the adolescent population in this new, adult population. In its annual outcomes report published earlier this year, the company cited that 81% of its adolescent patients reached or maintained their target weight within one year.
Photo credit: Bohdan Skrypnyk, Getty Images
The commercial market has been slower to adopt value-based care than the public market, but there are ways to move the process along successfully, executives said Monday.
During a panel at the Oliver Wyman Health Innovation Summit 2023 held in Chicago, healthcare leaders discussed the challenges and opportunities in advancing value-based care in commercial health plans. The panelists were Mark Hansberry, senior vice president and chief marketing officer of HealthPartners; Ellen Kelsay, president and CEO of Business Group on Health; and Tiffany Albert, senior vice president of health plan business at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
Bloomington, Minnesota-based HealthPartners, which is an integrated healthcare organization serving more than 1.8 million members, has had some success with value-based care in the commercial space, Hansberry claimed. He shared five rules for scaling value-based care in the commercial market:
1. Payers and providers in a value-based arrangement need to have a shared understanding of what value is for patients, Hansberry said.
“You have to have a universal definition of what value means so that when clinicians look at you as a payer … they need to acknowledge that what you’re saying a clinical outcome is is actually a good clinical outcome, a good measure of performance,” he stated.
2. It’s important to ensure that the providers in the value-based arrangement are able to and willing to take the risk associated with value-based care.
“Most care systems weren’t built to actually manage risk,” Hansberry said. “That wasn’t their job. Their job was to take care of sick people. Now we’re asking them to do something else. How do you actually support those individuals on that journey?”
3. Payers need to support providers engaging in value-based care with “real-time, actionable data and consultation,” Hansberry said.
“It’s not just a data dump or a big Excel file that you pass over and you say good luck with it,” he stated. “Because, by the way, if they perform well in those value-based contracts, you do too as a payer. You want them to perform well. So you want to provide them with good, insightful, actionable data that’s risk-adjusted, that is connected to their practice — not just an amorphous health system — but to their practice so they can take action on those insights. But then you also want to supplement that with that consultation along the way.”
4. The incentives in the value-based contract must be aligned to “enable that [provider] to reap the benefits of the value that they’re creating for those members,” according to Hansberry.
5. Ultimately, a value-based contract comes down to trust between all the parties. But Hansberry noted that this is easier for HealthPartners as an integrated health system.
“We’re fortunate because we’re both a health plan and a care system,” he said.
He added that success in value-based care doesn’t happen overnight, which is partially why it’s difficult to scale.
“It takes time to build trust,” Hansberry stated.
Photo: atibodyphoto, Getty Images
Terreno Realty purchased a low-level office property in Orange County, Calif., earlier this month for $14.8 million, the company announced, with plans to convert the site into industrial space.
The 4.9-acre site at 1720 East Garry Avenue in Santa Ana currently contains three multi-tenant office buildings, all leased on a short-term basis. Terreno plans to demolish the property, which it acquired from Greenlaw Partners, and redevelop it into a 92,000-square-foot, rear-load industrial distribution building.
The redeveloped property is already fully pre-leased to a “provider of temperature-controlled life sciences supply chain solutions,” according to the company. The redevelopment is expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2025, with a total investment of $40.6 million.
The sale and renovation of the property is indicative of the deteriorating office market in Southern California, particularly in Orange County, and also demonstrates the persistent demand for industrial space. Kearney Real Estate similarly plans to build a 164,000-square-foot industrial center in place of the existing Elevate@Harbor office campus in Santa Ana, while Blackstone (BX) (BX) sold two Santa Ana high-rise office buildings at a 36 percent loss earlier this year.
Nick Trombola can be reached at NTrombola@commercialobserver.com.
Susan L. Shin, a highly regarded and nationally recognized complex commercial litigation and trial attorney, has joined Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP as a partner in New York.
Shin’s significant litigation experience aligns squarely with the firm’s strategic focus and crosses several industries, including financial services, private equity, healthcare, retail and consumer products. Her multi-disciplinary practice encompasses a range of complex commercial litigation, including disputes and class actions involving consumer and common law fraud, RICO, and securities claims.
She represents public and private companies and executives and directors in federal and state courts, arbitral proceedings, state and federal regulatory hearings, and internal and government investigations. Shin has tried several cases to verdict in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and served as lead counsel in U.S. and international arbitrations.
“With more than two decades of experience helping corporate clients successfully navigate high stakes, complex litigation across the country and her impressive first-chair trial credentials, Susan is an ideal fit for our litigation practice,” said Alexandra Cunningham, co-head of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s litigation team. “Susan brings additional strength to our global litigation team and we are excited to welcome her to the firm.”
Some of Shin’s notable representations before joining the firm include:
- Lead defense trial counsel on behalf of a New York City teaching hospital, in an employment discrimination lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York.
- Lead defense trial counsel to a luxury hospitality company in an arbitration of a breach of contract claim.
- Lead defense trial counsel in a Hague Convention 12-day trial in the Southern District of New York.
- Court-appointed co-lead defense counsel in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) involving several major big box retailers and 26 putative class action lawsuits over consumer protection.
- Trial counsel defending federal savings bank and mortgage servicer in an RMBS breach of representations and warranties action brought by monoline insurer.
Shin joins Hunton Andrews Kurth from Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, where she was a partner in the complex litigation practice. She was previously a partner and member of the policy committee at Arnold & Porter, LLP.
She has served as a member of the Commercial Division Advisory Council of the Supreme Court of the State of New York since her appointment in 2020. She also holds leadership roles in the Asian American Bar Association of New York, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the New York City Outward Bound Schools’ Board and the New York County Lawyers’ Association Foundation.
Shin earned her law degree from Columbia Law School and her undergraduate degree from Rutgers University. She is a former law clerk of the Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, U.S. District Court Judge in the Eastern District of New York. In addition, she speaks Korean and regularly connects with clients and international companies worldwide.
Hunton Andrews Kurth’s skilled litigators focus on strategy over tactics, developing plans that are mindful of each client’s business and legal goals. Since our founding in 1901, Hunton Andrews Kurth has been a business-focused firm, an approach that we bring to today’s litigation climate. Our team of nearly 400 litigators draw upon decades of experience to handle all aspects of disputes with the goal of achieving successful results whether in the boardroom or a courtroom. We collaborate with clients to develop strategies that are comprehensive in scope and aligned with their needs. Publications such as The American Lawyer, National Law Journal, Chambers USA, Legal 500 United States, US News Best Lawyers and Global Investigations Review have recognized our practice and lawyers for their successful results and approach to client service.
Incept LLC v. Palette Life Sciences Inc. et al.,
2021-2063, 2021-2065 (Fed. Cir. Aug 16, 2023)
A product’s commercial success in the marketplace can be
used to prove the inventiveness of a patent, but a US court warns
that free samples are not relevant. Affirming written decisions of
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in two
inter partes reviews, the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (“CAFC”) ruled that only actual product sales
count towards supporting commercial success. The CAFC also
clarified that a general preference for an alternative in the prior
art does not teach way from the invention, and dependent claims
will automatically fall with an independent claim when they are not
argued separately.
Background
Incept LLC (“Incept”) owned U.S. Patents Nos. 8,257,723 (“the ‘723 Patent”)
and 7,744,913 (“the ‘913 Patent”),
which related to improved methods for treating prostate cancer
using radiation therapy. The patents described the injection of a
biodegradable filler gel between target tissue and non-target
tissue to increase the distance between the two, reducing exposure
to radiation for non-target tissues. Both patents claimed the
filler was biodegradable.
Palette Life Sciences Inc. (“Palette”) applied for
inter parties review of both patents,
claiming they were unpatentable for obviousness and anticipation.
Palette claimed that an earlier patent (“Wallace”)
described a method for “rapid formation of a biocompatible gel
… at a selected site within a patient’s body”. The PTAB
ultimately agreed with Palette, ruling the ‘723 and ‘913
patents unpatentable.
Anticipation
Incept argued on appeal that the PTAB committed a legal error by
engaging in a “patchwork approach” and “picking and
choosing” from Wallace’s different teachings to piece
together the elements of the ‘723 Patent. According to Incept,
Wallace described “millions, if not billions, of different
possible compositions, each with different properties”. Incept
likened this to a genus and species, arguing that “when a
prior art reference describes a genus, and the challenged claim
recites a species of that genus, anticipation turns on whether the
genus was of such a defined and limited class that the POSITA could
have “at once envisaged” each member of the
genus”.
The CAFC rejected Incept’s argument, finding that Wallace
explicitly described compositions that had the claimed
characteristics of, and were used for, the same purpose as the
compositions referred to in the ‘723 patent. The CAFC also
found that the “genus and species” comparison
inapplicable as the ‘723 patent claims were directed to a
method of introducing fillers with certain general
qualities, which the compositions in Wallace were also described as
having:
“Incept cannot use the fact that Wallace describes
multiple compositions to evade an anticipation finding where
Wallace provides “as complete detail as is contained in the
patent claim,” such that a skilled artisan would have
understood that Wallace’s compositions had the same generic
properties as those in the ‘723 patent claims”.
Obviousness and Commercial Success
Incept argued that the PTAB ignored Wallace’s teaching away
from biodegradable compositions, but the CAFC rejected this
argument. The PTAB had specifically noted that “Wallace’s
teaching that all suitable polymers disclosed are ‘essentially
nondegradable in vivo over a period of at least several months’
… teaches or at least suggests, that those polymers are
essentially degradable in the body over a period of more than at
least several months. The CAFC stated that:
A reference does not teach away if it ‘merely expresses
a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the
invention claimed.
Incept also argued that the PTAB did not separately analyze
certain dependent claims of the two patents, which provided
biodegradability time limits. Palette had identified disclosures in
the prior art that taught each of these elements and Incept had not
separately argued their patentability before the PTAB. Citing
Genetech, the CAFC ruled:
Where a party “does not raise any arguments with
respect to any other claim limitation, nor does it separately argue
[the] dependent claim,” “[the] dependent claim . . .
stands or falls together with [the] independent
claim.”
Incept’s final obviousness argument was that the PTAB
imposed an “overly stringent standard” for showing commercial success. Incept had produced a
table reflecting annual unit shipments to external customers for
the years 2015-2019 to support its assertion that shipments of its
SpaceOAR® hydrogel product had doubled year-on-year through
2019. However, the table not only included shipments for sale, but
shipments of replacements and free samples as well. While Incept
provided a breakdown of shipments attributed to units sold for the
years 2015-2017, it did not provide a breakdown for the years
2018-2019. It merely relied on testimony to state that the number
of replacement sand sample units for these years was
“small”.
The CAFC echoed the PTAB’s ruling and found that such a
record “does not demonstrate whether the year-over-year
increase in units shipped is attributable to increased sales as
opposed to an increase in samples and replacements that were
shipped”. As a result, Incept failed to sufficiently support
its commercial success argument.
Commentary
Even on a good day, commercial success is a tricky standard to
meet. It is merely a secondary consideration that courts weigh when
determining whether a patent is obvious or inventive. Ideally,
patent claims should include at least one feature that is not found
in the prior art so that a court’s decision does not depend on
secondary considerations. Realistically though, new prior art may
be later found, which will force a patent owner to rely on
secondary considerations. Based on the CAFC’s ruling against
Incept, we can expect that any accounting information used to
support patentability in these circumstances will be scrutinized
closely.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Biopharmaceutical giant Pfizer is growing its footprint at Industrial Realty Group’s Hudson Valley iCampus in Rockland County, New York.
Pfizer is expanding at the life sciences and biotech campus after signing for 151,065 square feet of manufacturing, laboratory, warehouse and office space in multiple buildings, Industrial Realty Group announced. The combined annual rents have a value in excess of $16 million.
Pfizer will use the space for its PGS division, which produces commercial antibody drug conjugates for Pfizer’s oncology business with clinical scale capabilities.
Hudson Valley iCampus is a 2 million-square-foot, mixed-use, multi-tenanted property on 207 acres at 401 North Middletown Road in Pearl River, N.Y., about 24 miles north of Manhattan. Tenants include Pfizer, Sanofi US Services, Momentive Performance Materials, Auro Vaccines and Strides Pharma.
Last year, Pfizer announced that it will invest $470 million to build a state-of-the art laboratory and office building on a portion of a 23-acre parcel it owns for its vaccine research and development division. That parcel is contiguous to Hudson Valley iCampus and will be an expansion of Pfizer’s existing laboratory, office and meeting spaces there.
Jamie Schwartz, president of Hudson Valley iCampus, represented ownership in Pfizer’s expansion. Warren Braverman, a senior managing director at Cushman & Wakefield (CWK), represented Pfizer.
Gregory Cornfield can be reached at gcornfield@commercialobserver.com.
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP is pleased to announce that 198 attorneys have been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America© 2024 as Best Lawyers. Additionally, 95 attorneys were named “Ones to Watch” in their respective fields.
Among these recognized attorneys, 11 were named “Lawyer of the Year,” a recognition awarded to individual attorneys with the highest overall peer–feedback for a specific practice area and geographic region. Only one attorney is recognized as the “Lawyer of the Year” for each specialty and location.
Lawyers of the Year:
- Tyler P. Brown: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation – Bankruptcy (Richmond, VA)
- Alexandra B. Cunningham: Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (Richmond, VA)
- Stephen P. Demm: Copyright Law (Richmond, VA)
- Kevin J. Finto: Litigation – Environmental (Richmond, VA)
- Edward J. Fuhr: Litigation – Regulatory Enforcement (SEC, Telecom, Energy), Litigation – Banking and Finance (Richmond, VA)
- Ryan A. Glasgow: Litigation – Labor and Employment (Richmond, VA)
- Sharon S. Goodwyn: Labor Law – Management (Norfolk, VA)
- Randall S. Parks: Corporate Law (Richmond, VA)
- James S. Seevers, Jr.: Venture Capital Law (Richmond, VA)
- Robert M. Tata: Trade Secrets Law (Norfolk, VA)
- Gary E. Thompson: Mergers and Acquisitions Law (Richmond, VA)
Atlanta, GA
- Lawrence J. Bracken, II (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law, Litigation – Banking and Finance
- Matthew J. Calvert (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Robert T. Dumbacher (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Mack Emerson (One to Watch): Financial Services Regulation Law
- Rachel Hudgins (One to Watch): Insurance Law
- Andrew S. Koelz (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation
- Kurt A. Powell (Best Lawyer): Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- John R. Schneider (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law
- Douglass P. Selby (Best Lawyer): Public Finance Law
- Caryl Greenberg Smith (Best Lawyer): Public Finance Law
- Eric Jon Taylor (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Banking and Finance
- Laura Thayer Wagner (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Financial Services Regulation Law, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Austin, TX
- Scott A. Brister (Best Lawyer): Appellate Practice
Boston, MA
- Brian J. Bosworth (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Martin F. Gaynor, III (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Antitrust
- Harry L. Manion, III (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Christopher M. Pardo (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Michael R. Perry (Best Lawyer): Mass Tort Litigation/Class Action – Defendants
- Thomas F. Reilly (Best Lawyer): Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Regulatory Enforcement (SEC, Telecom, Energy)
- Jacob J. Struck (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation
- Shauna Twohig (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation
Charlotte, NC
- Todd Brown (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Employment Law – Individuals, Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Banking and Finance, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Robert J. Hahn (Best Lawyer): Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Michael C. Kerrigan (Best Lawyer): Securitization and Structured Finance Law
- Nash E. Long, III (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Environmental, Litigation – Intellectual Property
- William H. McBride (Best Lawyer): Public Finance Law
- Michael Nedzbala (Best Lawyer): Securitization and Structured Finance Law
- Quince Thompson (One to Watch): Financial Services Regulation Law, Real Estate Law
Dallas, TX
- Michael F. Albers (Best Lawyer): Construction Law
- Scott Austin (Best Lawyer): Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
- David A. Barbour (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law, Securitization and Structured Finance Law
- Fawaz A. Bham (One to Watch): Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Real Estate Law
- Joseph Blizzard (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Environmental
- Thomas H. Cantrill (Best Lawyer): Trusts and Estates
- Jennifer L. Clyde (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation
- Lauren Freeland (One to Watch): Energy Law
- John T. Gerhart, Jr. (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Jeffrey W. Giese (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Gregory G. Hesse (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- John R. Holzgraefe (Best Lawyer): Advertising Law, Corporate Law
- Marysia Laskowski (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Andrew W. Lawrence (Best Lawyer): Tax Law
- Grayson L. Linyard (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation
- Alan J. Marcuis (Best Lawyer): Employment Law – Management
- Alexander G. McGeoch (Best Lawyer): Tax Law
- Joshua T. McNulty (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law
- Amee Parekh Narayan (One to Watch): Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law
- Myles F. Reynolds (Best Lawyer): Energy Regulatory Law
- Daryl B. Robertson (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Gregory J. Schmitt (Best Lawyer): Corporate Governance Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Howard E. Schreiber (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Caitlin A. Scipioni (One to Watch): Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Tax Law
- Joel R. Sharp (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Louis M. Stahl (One to Watch): Real Estate Law
- Mark R. Vowell (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Kevin A. Wakefield (One to Watch): Real Estate Law
- Peter G. Weinstock (Best Lawyer): Advertising Law, Banking and Finance Law, Corporate Law
Houston, TX
- Madison Amons (One to Watch): Banking and Finance Law, Project Finance Law, Real Estate Law
- Mark B. Arnold (Best Lawyer): Public Finance Law, Real Estate Law
- Callie Parker Bradford (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law
- Mark Breeding (Best Lawyer): Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
- Tammy W. Brennig (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law
- Megan Brown (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
- Joseph W. Buoni (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Bankruptcy
- Jeffrey M. Butler (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law
- Robert J. Collins (Best Lawyer): Land Use and Zoning Law, Litigation – Land Use and Zoning
- James V. Davidson (Best Lawyer): Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Timothy A. Davidson, II (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Lee Davis (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Energy Law, Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Jeff C. Dodd (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Information Technology Law
- Kaylan Dunn (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Energy Law
- Thomas W. Ford, Jr. (Best Lawyer): Energy Law, Tax Law
- Ian R. Goldberg (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Energy Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Jared D. Grodin (One to Watch): Banking and Finance Law, Commercial Litigation, Energy Law
- Philip M. Guffy (One to Watch): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Ashley L. Harper (One to Watch): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Financial Services Regulation Law
- Ross Hill (One to Watch): Energy Law
- Clayton T. Holland (Best Lawyer): Public Finance Law
- Kelsey J. Hope (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation
- Robert V. Jewell (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Energy Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Ashley Kahn (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Energy Law
- Neil D. Kelly (Best Lawyer): Energy Law
- Sarah Kittleman (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Terri Lacy (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Trusts and Estates, Trusts and Estates
- Jordan Latham (One to Watch): Tax Law
- Ashley Lewis (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Energy Law
- Jessica Knapp Little (One to Watch): Energy Law, Labor and Employment Law – Management
- Emily B. Macey (Best Lawyer): Trusts and Estates
- Allison D. Mantor (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Tax Law
- Daniel E. McCormick (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Chanse L. McLeod (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Robert J. McNamara (Best Lawyer): Tax Law
- William T. Miller (Best Lawyer): Arbitration, Litigation – Trusts and Estates
- Michael D. Morfey (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Construction
- Scott M. Nelson (Best Lawyer): Employment Law – Management
- Leah B. Nommensen (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Energy Law, Real Estate Law
- Michael O’Leary (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Thomas J. Perich (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Gregory L. Porter (Best Lawyer): Patent Law, Trade Secrets Law
- Samantha Gilley Rachlin (One to Watch): Public Finance Law
- Michael Reed (One to Watch): Labor and Employment Law – Management
- Joseph Rovira (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Robin Russell (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Corporate Law
- Thomas A. Sage (Best Lawyer): Public Finance Law
- Conor Shary (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- John B. Shely (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Insurance
- Katherine Strahan (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Timothy J. Unger (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Energy Law, Project Finance Law
- Greg Waller (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Holly H. Williamson (Best Lawyer): Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- David A. Zdunkewicz (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Dimitri Zgourides (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Health Care
Los Angeles, CA
- Christopher W. Hasbrouck (One to Watch): Land Use and Zoning Law, Real Estate Law
- Roland M. Juarez (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Andrew Quigley (One to Watch): Labor and Employment Law – Management
- Veronica A. Torrejón (One to Watch): Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Malcolm C. Weiss (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law
- JeeHyun Yoon (One to Watch): Litigation – Labor and Employment
Miami, FL
- Yaniel Abreu (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law
- Gil O. Acevedo (Best Lawyer):Real Estate Law
- Fernando C. Alonso (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law, Corporate Law, International Mergers & Acquisitions
- Walter J. Andrews (Best Lawyer): Insurance Law, Litigation – Insurance
- Daniel Butler (One to Watch): Labor and Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- María Castellanos (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation
- Samuel A. Danon (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Barry R. Davidson (Best Lawyer): Bet–the–Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Antitrust, Litigation – Banking and Finance, Litigation – Construction, Litigation – Real Estate, Litigation – Securities
- Andrea DeField (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law
- John J. Delionado (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White–Collar
- Juan C. Enjamio (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Employment Law – Management, Labor Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Jamie Zysk Isani (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Gabriel M. Lopez (One to Watch): Banking and Finance Law
- Fernando Margarit (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law, Corporate Law
- Uriel A. Mendieta (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law
- Angela R. Morrison (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law
- Cary Steklof (One to Watch): Insurance Law
- Cary Tolley, III (Best Lawyer): Equipment Finance Law
- Alice Weeks (One to Watch): Insurance Law
New York, NY
- Daniela Alvarado (One to Watch): Real Estate Law
- George E. Badenoch (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Patent
- Jeremy S. Boczko (One to Watch): Intellectual Property Law
- Robert Brusco (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Nadia Burgard (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Brian M. Clarke (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Douglas Dua (One to Watch): Energy Law
- Emmett Ellis (Best Lawyer): Energy Law
- Laurie A. Grasso (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Douglas H. Hoffmann (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- James J. La Rocca (Best Lawyer): Employment Law – Management
- Marshall Mattera (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation
- Peter S. Partee, Sr. (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Jonathan D. Reichman (Best Lawyer): Copyright Law, Litigation – Intellectual Property
- James Saeli (One to Watch): Real Estate Law, Tax Law
- Paul N. Silverstein (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Kevin Small (One to Watch): Insurance Law
Norfolk, VA
- Robert M. Tata (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets Law
Richmond, VA
- Rafia Ali (One to Watch): Financial Services Regulation Law, Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law
- John J. Beardsworth, Jr. (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Energy Law, International Trade and Finance Law, Project Finance Law
- Timothy E. Biller (One to Watch): Energy Law
- Matthew P. Bosher (Best Lawyer): Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Securities
- Charles L. Brewer (One to Watch): Corporate Governance and Compliance Law, Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Alyson Brown (One to Watch): Labor and Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Tyler P. Brown (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Bet–the–Company Litigation, Litigation – Bankruptcy
- Kevin J. Buckley (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law, Securitization and Structured Finance Law
- Daniel M. Campbell (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Aaron J. Carroll (One to Watch): Construction Law, Real Estate Law
- John C. Chenault, V (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Whittington W. Clement (Best Lawyer): Government Relations Practice
- Cassandra C. Collins (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Environmental
- Alexandra B. Cunningham (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Environmental, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Shannon E. Daily (One to Watch): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Commercial Litigation
- Merideth Snow Daly (One to Watch): Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Wyatt A. Deal (Best Lawyer): Private Funds/Hedger Funds Law
- Stephen P. Demm (Best Lawyer): Copyright Law, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Trademark Law
- Mayme Beth F. Donohue (One to Watch): Corporate Governance and Compliance Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Maya M. Eckstein (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent
- Christina C. Edwards (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Technology Law
- Jeffery Edwards (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Kelly L. Faglioni (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Edward J. Fuhr (Best Lawyer): Corporate Compliance Law, Litigation – Banking and Finance, Litigation – First Amendment, Litigation – Mergers and Acquisitions, Litigation – Regulatory Enforcement (SEC, Telecom, Energy), Litigation – Securities, Securities/Capital Markets Law, Securities Regulation
- Douglas M. Garrou (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation
- Kevin M. Georgerian (Best Lawyer): Venture Capital Law
- Ryan A. Glasgow (Best Lawyer): Labor Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Michael P. Goldman (Best Lawyer): Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Allen C. Goolsby, III (Best Lawyer): Corporate Governance Law, Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Sharon S. Goodwyn (Best Lawyer): Employment Law – Management, Labor Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Douglas S. Granger (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Steven M. Haas (Best Lawyer): Corporate Governance Law, Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Jason W. Harbour (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Sharon Palmer Harrington (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Energy Law
- Rudene Mercer Haynes (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law
- Mark S. Hedberg (Best Lawyer): Health Care Law
- David C. Hiltebrand (One to Watch): Banking and Finance Law, Financial Services Regulation Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Cecelia Philipps Horner (Best Lawyer): Tax Law
- George C. Howell, III (Best Lawyer): Tax Law
- Matthew D. Jenkins (Best Lawyer): Health Care Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Harry M. Johnson, III (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Jacob Johnson (One to Watch): Tax Law
- Laura Ellen Jones (Best Lawyer): Tax Law
- Dan J. Jordanger (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental, Natural Resources Law
- James A. Kennedy, II (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Christopher G. Kulp (Best Lawyer): Project Finance Law, Public Finance Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Kurt G. Larkin (Best Lawyer): Employment Law – Management
- Tyler S. Laughinghouse (One to Watch): Labor and Employment Law – Management
- Elbert Lin (Best Lawyer): Appellate Practice
- Henry Long, III (One to Watch): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Kimberly C. MacLeod (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law
- Austin P. Maloney (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Charles M. Matthews (One to Watch): Financial Services Regulation Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Real Estate Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- John Gary Maynard, III (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Intellectual Property, Trademark Law
- Patrick McDermott (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Insurance
- Wendy C. McGraw (Best Lawyer): Appellate Practice, Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Reilly C. Moore (One to Watch): Labor and Employment Law – Management
- Thurston R. Moore (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Matthew Nigriny (One to Watch): Intellectual Property Law, Litigation – Intellectual Property
- Lonnie D. Nunley, III (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- John D. O’Neill, Jr. (Best Lawyer): Public Finance Law
- Johanna Orleski (One to Watch): Real Estate Law
- Anna Knecht Page (One to Watch): Financial Services Regulation Law, Real Estate Law, Tax Law
- David Parker (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property Law
- Randall S. Parks (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Information Technology Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- James M. Pinna (Best Lawyer): Health Care Law
- Robert Dean Pope (Best Lawyer): Public Finance Law
- Lewis F. Powell, III (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Antitrust
- Robert M. Rolfe (Best Lawyer): Bet–the–Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Environmental
- Kate Saltz (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Real Estate Law
- Watson Seaman (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law
- James S. Seevers, Jr. (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Leveraged Buyouts and Private Equity Law, Venture Capital Law
- Michael R. Shebelskie (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Environmental
- George P. Sibley, III (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Kendal A. Sibley (Best Lawyer): Tax Law, Venture Capital Law
- Thomas G. Slater, Jr. (Best Lawyer): Antitrust Law, Bet–the–Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, Litigation – Antitrust, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Regulatory Enforcement (SEC, Telecom, Energy), Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
- J.R. Smith (Best Lawyer): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
- Brendan M. Staley (One to Watch): Public Finance Law, Real Estate Law
- Andrew J. Tapscott (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Gary E. Thompson (Best Lawyer): Corporate Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Patrick C. Tricker (One to Watch): Financial Services Regulation Law
- William J. Van Thunen (One to Watch): Corporate Law, Securities/Capital Markets Law
- Joshua R. Venne (One to Watch): Securities/Capital Markets Law, Tax Law
- Richard L. Warren (Best Lawyer): Corporate Governance Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Thomas R. Waskom (Best Lawyer): Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Mark W. Wickersham (Best Lawyer): Corporate Governance Law
- Amy McDaniel Williams (Best Lawyer): Securities/Capital Markets Law, Securitization and Structured Finance Law
- Brian A. Wright (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
- Jennifer E. Wuebker (One to Watch): Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law
San Francisco, CA
- Shannon S. Broome (Best Lawyer): Energy Regulatory Law, Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Samuel L. Brown (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law
- Scott P. DeVries (Best Lawyer): Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants
- Clare Ellis (One to Watch): Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Drei Munar (One to Watch): Labor and Employment Law – Management
- Katherine P. Sandberg (One to Watch): Financial Services Regulation Law, Labor and Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
Washington, DC
- Syed S. Ahmad (Best Lawyer): Insurance Law
- Virginia S. Albrecht (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Jorge Aviles (One to Watch): Insurance Law
- Ian P. Band (Best Lawyer): Immigration Law
- Ryan M. Bates (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Labor and Employment
- Jason P. Brown (One to Watch): Labor and Employment Law – Management
- William Brownell (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Environmental
- Ellis M. Butler (Best Lawyer): Energy Law
- James Channing E. (One to Watch): Construction Law
- Christopher J. Dufek (One to Watch): Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants
- Heather Archer Eastep (Best Lawyer): FinTech Practice
- Latosha Ellis (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Andrea Field (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Environmental
- Christopher Giragosian (Best Lawyer): Banking and Finance Law
- James A. Glasgow (Best Lawyer): Energy Law
- Kevin Hahm (Best Lawyer): Antitrust Law
- Alexandra Hamilton (One to Watch): Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Timothy L. Jacobs (Best Lawyer): Tax Law
- Andrew D. Kasnevich (One to Watch): Intellectual Property Law
- Andrew R. Kintzinger (Best Lawyer): Public Finance Law
- Charles H. Knauss (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law, Litigation – Environmental
- Perie Reiko Koyama (One to Watch): Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants
- Michael S. Levine (Best Lawyer): Insurance Law
- Rori Malech (Best Lawyer): Real Estate Law
- Phyllis H. Marcus (Best Lawyer): Advertising Law
- Jeffrey N. Martin (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Environmental
- Lorelie S. Masters (Best Lawyer): Insurance Law, Litigation – Insurance
- John C. McGranahan, Jr. (Best Lawyer): Land Use and Zoning Law, Litigation – Land Use and Zoning, Real Estate Law
- Eric J. Murdock (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law
- David A. Mustone (Best Lawyer): Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law
- Henry V. Nickel (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Environmental
- Charles D. Ossola (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Intellectual Property
- Jill Parks (One to Watch): Land Use and Zoning Law, Real Estate Law
- Shemin V. Proctor (Best Lawyer): Energy Law
- Adam J. Rosser (Best Lawyer): Immigration Law
- Jeffrey P. Schroeder (Best Lawyer): Energy Law
- John Lee Shepherd, Jr. (Best Lawyer): Energy Regulatory Law
- Laurence E. Skinner (Best Lawyer): Energy Law
- Koorosh Talieh (Best Lawyer): Insurance Law, Litigation – Insurance
- Andrew J. Turner (Best Lawyer): Environmental Law
- Jessica N. Vara (One to Watch): Commercial Litigation
- Lieselot K. Whitbeck (One to Watch): Immigration Law
- Kevin J. White (Best Lawyer): Litigation – Labor and Employment
Recognition by Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer–review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical region and legal practice area. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of the quality of legal services.
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP special counsel Judge Thomas B. Griffith and special counsel Lewis F. Powell III have been named to the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Task Force for American Democracy.
The ABA’s Task Force for American Democracy seeks to look at ways to improve public trust in our election system. The focus of the task force includes depoliticizing the administration of elections; educating the public on the principles of American democracy; and identifying and advancing improvements and innovations in our systems of election that address the root causes of the current politicization and lack of trust in the election process and democracy. Co-chaired by former 4th Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig and former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Charles Johnson, the task force includes thought leaders, lawyers, former elected officials and business leaders, among others, representing a bipartisan group of recognized national leaders with expertise in American government, democracy and the rule of law.
Griffith served as a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005–2020. While on the bench, he was the author of approximately 200 opinions on a range of matters including administrative, environmental and energy law, and congressional investigations. Griffith joined the firm in 2021, focusing his practice on appellate litigation, congressional and internal investigations, and strategic counseling.
Powell’s litigation practice has ranged from complex intellectual property, commercial, fraud, and antitrust cases; to the nuclear regulatory field and environmental and toxic tort matters; and to telecommunications issues. He has handled trial and appellate matters before courts and regulatory agencies in more than 15 states.
Even as a supply glut faces the ailing life sciences industry, economists believe the sector is poised for growth, with properties trading at nearly four times the national square foot average of all office buildings and more than 23 million square feet of lab space currently under construction.
A new report from commercial real estate data and analytics firm Yardi Matrix concluded that while a supply glut for the life sciences sector is imminent, bullish demand stemming from an increasingly innovative economy bodes well for its fundamentals.
“It’s got something that office doesn’t have: It’s got a tail to it,” said Doug Ressler, manager of business intelligence at Yardi and author of the national report. “It’s got demand to it — that ability to generate demand compared to office, which is in a whole deceleration mode.”
Ressler noted this strong demand for life sciences is being driven by the 21st century economy.
“It’s got a lot of runway to explore, especially with the biopharma industry, the CHIPS Act,” he said, referring to the 2022 federal legislation that provides a $53 billion investment in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, research and development.
“Life sciences is more self-sustaining, self-reliant [than other asset classes], and you have an increasing number of student visas being granted in California and the East Coast for biopharma activity to support life sciences,” he added.
The astronomical growth of life sciences in commercial real estate has undoubtedly been one of the biggest — and most optimistic — stories of recent years.
Last decade, life sciences comprised only 5 percent of all office construction, and only 23.9 million square feet of life sciences facilities were delivered between 2010 and 2019. But the sector has accounted for 25 percent of all new construction starts in the last two years, and more than 16.3 million square feet of new life sciences facilities have been delivered since 2021 alone, according to Yardi Matrix.
All that considered, there are some cracks in the life sciences sector’s armor. Not only has a slowdown in venture capital funding occurred in 2023 (largely due to increased capital costs), but sales have also cratered: Only $386.6 million in sales for lab space has been generated through July 2023, compared to $6 billion in lab space sales in all of 2022.
Cities like Phoenix and Atlanta have seen the largest pullback of life sciences development, while hubs like Boston and San Diego are still going strong, albeit at a more measured pace, according to Ressler.
“We think that’s attributable to the fact that interest rates and cost of development, ability to develop, zoning, permitting, you name it, has made all the markets, but especially the life sciences markets, pull back,” he said.
Yardi Matrix now forecasts the lack of demand to cause a life sciences supply glut in the coming quarters.
“We believe the pandemic initiated a lot of life sciences activity, and, obviously, with the severity of the pandemic lessened, the need for the life sciences development falls to the cost and demand side of things,” said Ressler. “Some of that is also being eaten up by technology hubs in major universities, who no longer need to have third party independent life sciences development.”
But if demand in the sector is expected to decline in the coming months, it will be buttressed back to an eventual state of health by high prices and innovation within the biopharmacy field.
National life sciences properties sold in 2023 have traded at an average of $770 per square foot, which is nearly four times the $190 per square foot that national office properties have traded at this year, according to Yardi Matrix.
Ressler noted that new drugs like Ozempic, the weight loss treatment, and generative artificial intelligence are likely to play a role in nursing the sector back to health.
“It will go through a little dip, but we see the life sciences augmented by the new technology that’s been created by the biopharma industry,” he said.
Brian Pascus can be reached at bpascus@commercialobserver.com.