GATEKEEPER Pharmaceuticals had focused on developing next generation small molecule drugs that overcome resistance arising from treatment by targeted oncology agents. GATEKEEPER's lead product was to be a proprietary EGFR inhibitor that potently overcomes resistance to Tarceva® and Iressa® treatment. What happened to the firm is a cautionary tale that is worth noting: Principals of the firm - serial entrepreneurs - became aware that a cancer drug candidate being developed by researchers at the Dana-Farber showed promise in treating some non-small-cell lung cancers resistant to other available drug treatments. An option agreement was established between Dana Farber and Gatekeeper principals in early 2009 by which -- if the small firm could raise initial financing -- they wouldbe granted a license. By Spring 2010, the Founder had secured that required funding; an NIH SBIR award was approved and Gatekeeper was ready to exercise its option for the patent. PROBLEM: in 2005 a major pharmaceutical firm had established a research agreement with Dana-Farber to include project grants for work that may have been related to the drug under development, That Major Corporation claimed that, under the terms of its research agreement with Dana-Farber, it had first rights to the patent that would be crucial to the small firms operations. Having previously determined that research funded by Large Firm did not include the now patented work, when confronted Dana Farber changed iposition. That decision caused Gatekeeper investors to withdraw their funding. A series of lawsuits followed among the three parties. Long story short - In October 2012, a US district court in Massachusetts issued a summary judgment concluding that Large Firm could not prove it was entitled to a license to the technology under the research agreement. Gatekeeper had won - but it was hollow victory. Too much time had past, critical groundwork had not been laid and though the principals have sucessfully launched other endeavors, Gateway was no more. The p
