Berkeley Lights – Cell & Gene Therapy Development – 20 July 2021

Could you outline recent developments in the broader cell and gene therapy industry since our previous Interview [see CAR-T Cell Manufacturing – Market Update & H2 2021 Outlook – 29 April 2021]? Have any underlying dynamics trended differently since we last spoke?

Could you outline Berkeley Lights’ technological approach in cell therapy and its broader portfolio, considering the CTMS [cell therapy manufacturing system] alpha placement in Q4 2020? How would you characterise the company’s offering?

The first CTMS was placed in 2020 and many questions remain around the potential for integration of next-generation assays and which next-generation assays customers want. Could you break down these criteria and what you expect in this regard from Berkeley Lights?

Could you elaborate on Berkeley Lights’ expansion of some assays? You mentioned that a lot of what is needed is already there. What else do you find potential for when considering that manufacturing workflow? Do you expect any movement in counting cells or electroporation, which would mean competing with a company such as MaxCyte?

You mentioned that electroporation was one of the areas that people asked about. Which other areas have clients indicated they would like Berkeley Lights to move into?

You mentioned that counting cells is not necessarily a very difficult thing for Berkeley Lights to integrate, but it is moving towards GMP [good manufacturing practice] and wants to displace various fragmented lab methods and consolidate workflows. What do you think will be the hardest areas for the company to integrate or include in its technology? Where could its strategy meet challenges in the short or long term?

What are your initial thoughts on Berkeley Lights’ announcement that it will expand to subscription-based models, adding an all-inclusive package, particularly aimed at smaller biotech firms? In our previous Interview, you noted the high costs in cell therapy might warrant lower adoption spend around an area such as antibody discovery, given some of the potential ROI considerations. What’s your take on the subscription based model and how could it evolve?

You mentioned price could be a reason for hesitancy for potential Berkeley Lights customers. We have heard the expertise required for an in-house R&D team is also a potential barrier in this regard. Could you expand on the feedback that Berkeley Lights’ platform receives in cell therapy? What other models – such as subscription – could increase demand or adoption more effectively?

Who are Berkeley Lights’ main competitors in cell therapy, such as 10x and IsoPlexis?

Berkeley Lights’ focus, particularly in cell therapy, seems to be around growth and adoption potential, though it cautions that it will take a while to get into the market and generate revenue. How might this dynamic impact the company’s value, given its capabilities in cell therapy? Where does the company add value currently vs the different growth options we’ve discussed?

Would cell and gene therapy cannibalise the market for small-molecule and monoclonal antibodies? What would you expect from such a dynamic?

What criteria do you suggest investors keep in mind when assessing Berkeley Lights’ cell and gene therapy capabilities and any new players that enter the segment? In our previous Interview we discussed light vs gravity. This time we talked about revenue models vs subscription.

You mentioned price as a consideration, the company’s need to continue to publish data and the expansion of work flows depending on ease of use. What are your best- and worst-case scenarios for Berkeley Lights as it continues to address the feedback that you referenced and generally continues to expand its footprint here?

You noted the importance of customers validating Berkeley Lights’ technology. Why you do you think it has had issues here? Is it down to not having enough of a client base?