Category Archives: LEDs

Disposable technologies are quickly beginning to change the face of pharmaceutical cleanroom facility design and economics

By Steve Tingley

Editor's note:This is the first in a two-part article on evolving disposable manufacturing practices and technologies. Part II will run in the May CleanRooms Biotech supplement.

Observers of trends in the biopharmaceutical manufacturing world over the last 25 years have recognized a movement in technology adoption from a relatively unsophisticated, labor-intensive “people process” toward a fully automated one that often includes ready-to-use separations devices.

Over the years, leading pharmaceutical manufacturers have realized that reducing their reliance on human operators to execute standard operating procedures (SOPs) in reliable and reproducible ways leads directly to increased productivity, improved product quality and regulatory compliance.

A reassessment of costs in manufacturing operations has led to a change in manufacturing strategy. The potential cost of quality, yield losses and delays in getting new drugs to market, often inherent in more manual manufacturing processes, has led to the adoption of seemingly more expensive options. Ultimately, the adoption of capital-intensive products such as barriers, steam-in-place (SIP) filters and sophisticated supervisor control and data acquisition (SCADA)-based process control systems has given rise to current manufacturing strategies. Also influential has been the use of ready-to-use process separation devices such as single-use filtration cartridges.

The industry is taking the next step, in which valuable, highly educated manufacturing personnel will be focused more on the production process than on preparation and clean up after manufacturing. Manufacturers will accomplish this change by employing disposable manufacturing technology.

Disposable manufacturing defined

The ultimate vision of the most ambitious biopharmaceutical companies is a completely disposable manufacturing process. In the case of a recombinant biotech product, this means that each unit process operation, from fermentation through purification, to final fill-and-finish, ideally should be redesigned and retooled to enable the economical single use (as shown in Fig. 1).

Click here to enlarge image

The primary challenge is to remove all permanent fluid paths from the manufacturing process. Chief among these permanent fluid paths are stainless steel pipes, tanks, fermenters, filter and chromatography housings.

A disposable manufacturing option can potentially offer significant savings in time to market, perhaps saving as much as six months within a 30-month validation process. Process capital-intensive projects can be reduced by 25 to 30 percent if the disposable option is pursued.

Disposable manufacturing benefits

The benefits of disposable manufacturing are many; their relative significance depends on the type of drug to be manufactured and the focus, size and resources of the individual biopharmaceutical company. These benefits include economy, speed to market, capacity and drug process security.

Economic benefits: Depending on individual circumstances, disposable manufacturing is expected to provide multiple opportunities for cost savings. Detailed cost-of-goods (COG) assessments of existing manufacturing processes have shown that the replacement of steel tanks with plastic flexible containment systems can result in direct running cost savings of eight percent.

The savings are realized primarily through labor reduction and the relieving of production “bottlenecks” that reduce overall efficiency. As far as facility expansion is concerned, there is further opportunity for economic advantage through the reduction of capital investment.

In its most evolved state, the disposable process will not require steam sterilization, autoclaves or clean-in-place (CIP) utilities. By minimizing the sizes of utility plants and facility footprints, the pharmaceutical company can realize significant savings in its validation efforts. These types of economies can significantly impact capital investment and minimize startup delays by reducing engineering, validation and regulatory inspection burden.

Speed to market: This benefit is important to all biopharmaceutical manufacturers, but especially to the small or virtual companies who do not have their own manufacturing capabilities. The potential revenue loss associated with a single day's delay in market approval is often counted in millions of dollars. Clinical trials are often a leading cause of approval delays.

Before the trials begin, sufficient drug product must be manufactured in multiple batches. For those companies who do not have that manufacturing capacity, the disposable manufacturing option offers different solutions. Disposable manufacturing can help by facilitating the speedy production of small-scale clinical manufacturing and multi-product contract manufacturing.

Minimizing sterilization and CIP processes allow faster process turnaround and provide for increased facility capacity. In the same way, disposable manufacturing facilitates multi-product manufacturing, potentially offering contract manufacturers a way of increasing capacity and producing multiple small-volume batches of different drugs.

Manufacturing capacity: Increasing capacity is often difficult in fixed facilities; furthermore, multi-product facilities often require additional equipment. Disposable manufacturing can increase manufacturing capacity by reducing the turnaround time of bottleneck process steps and by making it easier for existing facilities to increase production efficiency.

Drug product/process security: Logically, disposable manufacturing products and practices also have the ability to improve drug product quality by minimizing contamination. Without including lost opportunity costs or the economic impact of liability and market recall, the manpower, documentation and regulatory compliance efforts associated with security alone would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

A 2001 Parenteral Drug Association (PDA; Bethesda, Md.) survey identified the most common causes of aseptic processing failure (see “Identified causes of aseptic processing failures”). Disposable manufacturing provides opportunities to directly improve many of the practices associated with aseptic processing failure.

People are the single largest source of microbiological contamination; it is recognized practice within the industry to minimize direct operator contact with manufacturing processes. The barrier properties of disposable manufacturing ensure the separation of people and process. The use of pre-sterilized process steps and novel connection systems replaces the reliance on SOP-dependent aseptic connections with secure sterile connections. Single-use containers and novel transfer systems enable the use of outsourced sterilization processes such as gamma irradiation.

As in previous examples, disposable manufacturing facilitates the switch from less robust operator-dependent processes to greater automation. The use of gamma irradiation to replace SIP and autoclave sterilization, as well as the use of sterile transfer systems in place of aseptic rapid transfer port (RTP) systems for material transfer, has the capability to further improve process security and drug product quality.

Range of applications

Disposable manufacturing is broadly applicable across the range of manufacturing processes and drug types, even if the specific derived benefits differ. The current status of disposable manufacturing can best be described as incomplete.

Biopharmaceutical companies have been using disposable filter technology in the form of capsule filters, which have been available for nearly 20 years. In the last 10 years, four or five companies have developed and introduced single-use flexible containment systems, which have been dubbed “bags.”

The significance of this perspective should not be lost when considering the disposable manufacturing option. When companies consider what they expect to gain from the disposable option, they must carefully assess the form, fit and function of each disposable system.

Small-scale bioreactors are now available and have been placed into service for up to 200-L fermentation. Recently commercialized technologies include single-use virus removal technology and large-surface-area, single-use microporous membrane capsules. Development programs are underway aimed at single-use disposable process steps for cell harvest, clarification, chromatography and ultrafiltration.

These types of purification processes do not typically require state-of-the-art cleanroom facilities, unlike the final fill-and-finish cleanrooms. Hence, the principal benefits of disposable manufacturing provide cost savings by minimizing CIP operations and validation, increasing the flexibility and efficiency of the manufacturing process and enhancing product safety. This enhancement is provided by minimizing the risk of chemical contamination from drug to drug and batch to batch, and by minimizing the risk associated with the chemicals used to CIP stainless-steel systems.

Technology for barriers

Once the bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) have been manufactured and purified, they require final aseptic processing. Most biotech products are proteins that are heat labile and unavailable as an oral dosage form, and that, therefore, requires aseptic processing. Ultimately, these drugs are sterile filled into liquid or freeze-dried formulations.

These final fill-and-finish aseptic processes are conducted using barrier technology, either in the form of a cleanroom or barrier isolator. The purpose of these barriers is to maintain the sterility of the drug liquid and the dosage format components (such as vials, stoppers and needles) as they are brought together to fill the parenteral liquids in the open containers.

Barriers maintain this sterility by maintaining very clean, controlled environments in which particles and microbiological contamination is kept to an absolute minimum. Poorly designed work flows and materials flows can cause significant problems with barrier validation and operation.

Disposable manufacturing can play a major role in improving the effectiveness of final fill-and-finish barrier operations. New, single-use technologies are continually being developed. They have three major purposes: to keep people away from the fill-and-finish area; to minimize chemical cross contamination; and to minimize the microbiological challenge to a final fill process.

Like the presence of operators in the area, microbial challenge introduced during material transfer is another significant source of potential contamination. Consider a filling operation of 100,000 vials per shift. At 3,000 stoppers per container, that operation requires over 30 transfers. With each transfer there is the accompanying risk of contamination transfer. This risk is a significant part of the microbiological challenge presented to a filling operation. It is recognized as an intervention risk as the type, number and time of transfer must be included in process simulation media fills.

Disposable transfer technology

Material transfer into final filling operations always presents challenges. Common questions that arise include: How do I sterilize the filling components, stoppers and needles? How do I transfer them across barrier to barrier without contaminating the progressively cleaner environments? How do I develop a system to transfer my sterile drug solution for filling?

Most of the currently used transfer systems for moving sterile materials into a filling operation involve the use of an aseptic wiping procedure. Simple wipe and pass systems are used to move pre-packed sterile components to progressively cleaner environments. These systems operate by requiring the simple removal of a dirty outer bag and/or a complete wipe down with a sanitizing agent before passing sterile materials through a simple air lock.

This process is repeated for each barrier until packaged components finally pass inside a Class A environment. The operator, usually working above the component hopper, must open the bag and empty the components into the distribution hopper. This is undesirable from a number of perspectives:

  • Potentially dirty packaging materials are moved into the Class A environment.
  • An operator must put at least the head and arms inside the Class A area.
  • The packaging is opened and emptied, introducing particles and creating significant movement inside the Class A environment.
  • The filling line may have to be stopped.
  • All these activities must be included in the bi-annual process simulation validation.

Even more sophisticated systems, such as the alpha/beta transfer system currently used for barrier isolators, have their limitations. The newer “beta bag” systems avoid the need for packaging materials to be passed inside the Class A environment, but still require a sanitization wipe down. This wipe down is required to minimize the microbiological challenge to the filling area from the “ring of concern.”

A gasket on the alpha door of the beta bag transfer system causes this ring of concern. During the materials-handling process, the outside of the alpha door and this gasket are exposed to the environment surrounding the Class A filling area, usually Class B or D. Hence, the gasket is dirty. When the alpha and beta doors are mated, this dirty area is trapped between the alpha and beta doors and sealed tight by the gasket situated between the two doors.

This gasket is also dirty and is extruded from between the sealed doors into the Class A environment. The gasket extrudes by about 1/8 inch; it's this dirty gasket area exposed to the filling environment that is dubbed the ring of concern.

Click here to enlarge image

The contamination risk is addressed by an operator-executed alcohol wipe down procedure. This process is subjective, time-consuming and cannot be properly validated.

These systems are used for making multiple transfers during a shift, perhaps as many as 30 or more. They are also used for long-term sterile fluid-path connections, which are made only once per shift but are in contact with the filling environment for many hours at a time. Both of these situations can be described as high-risk connections and transfers to the filling environment, which by definition, place a significant microbiological challenge to the final-fill process.lll

Steve Tingley is director of biopharmaceutical marketing at Millipore Corporation (Billerica, Mass.). He can be reached at [email protected].

Jan. 28, 2003 — Perlegen Sciences Inc., the Affymetrix Inc. spinoff formed in 2000 to develop therapeutics and diagnostics products, closed on a $30 million second round of financing, according to a company news release.

The round was led by Maverick Capital. New investors include Unilever Technology Ventures, Eli Lilly & Co., Biofrontier Partners and CSK Venture Capital. Previous investors Vulcan Ventures, BioMedical Sciences Investment Fund, CMEA Ventures, SB Life Science Ventures and Alejandro Zaffaroni also participated.

Perlegen will use the funds to accelerate its current research and development efforts. The company uses high-density microarray chips to sequence human DNA and aims to discover and prioritize new drug targets and develop new pharmaceutical and diagnostic products. Perlegen has ongoing research collaborations with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline plc and Pfizer Inc. Perlegen announced $100 million in first-round funding in April 2001.

Jan. 22, 2003 — Akustica Inc., a Pittsburgh developer of MEMS-based acoustic chips, extended its first round of financing to $4.5 million, according to a company news release. Akustica previously closed the round in October at $2.25 million.

As announced in October, the round was led by Chamberlain Investments, a new venture investing firm formed by Glen Meakem, co-founder of FreeMarkets.com. The $2.25 million extension announced today was provided by private individual investors, a company spokesman said.

The company intends to use the funds for continued product development. Akustica uses MEMS technology to integrate microphones and speakers with integrated microelectronics on standard CMOS semiconductor chips.

Jan. 16, 2003 — While some small tech companies are working to commercialize university laboratory findings, others are thriving off the research itself.

Case in point is Veeco Instruments Inc., which has staked its claim on nanotech research through domination of the atomic force microscope (AFM) market. Other companies, such as Arryx Inc. and Quantum Dot Corp., are leveraging the quest to understand how nanoparticles can be manipulated to benefit research as well as their own bottom lines.

“We definitely get daily calls,” said Lewis Gruber, Arryx’s president and chief executive. “They’re from people looking to use our technology to solve some problem or even going to manufacturing processes.”

Click here to enlarge image

Chicago-based Arryx, which recently completed a $2.1 million third round of funding, develops tools primarily for its own research and products, but the company is transferring its technology to additional areas, products and partners. Gruber said development of the company’s BioRyx 200, which provides a 3-D look at tiny objects, has led to other opportunities in small tech.

“That same road (of BioRyx 200) is leading down to processing nanotech components and chemicals,” Gruber said.

Gruber said that because nanotech is not a settled field, it is important to be in touch with more than one aspect of an idea or approach. “Research is highly important in all high technologies,” he said. “Without it, we would fall behind or the technology wouldn’t be adopted. On the other hand, the development of products themselves is essential in order to show that it’s paying off.”

Andy Watson, Quantum Dot’s vice president of business development, said the company’s first product — aimed at biological, cell and protein research — led to wider nanotech know-how and patents. The Hayward, Calif.,-based company’s processes were developed for use in its own products, but have also advanced nanotechnology’s role in general biology, Watson said.

“For us, it’s a mixture of research and products,” he said. “Research is leading to many new products. The research is very important to us because it’s driving our products, but there has to be some business justification while it’s done in a commercial organization and a realization that you’re building real business.”

A cycle of new products has helped Woodbury, N.Y.-based Veeco remain profitable despite the cyclical adversity in many pure-play areas of small tech, according to Don Kania, president of Veeco Metrology Group. “Our underlying strategy is new products, new products,” Kania said. “Half of our revenue comes from products less than 24 months old.”

Leo O’Connor, research director at Frost & Sullivan’s Technical Insights, said bottom-up technology — which involve assembling atoms or molecules into nanostructures — requires specific techniques that are still being perfected: soft lithography that employs printing, stamping, molding and embossing; catalytic growth; and use of scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes.

“It’s too soon to tell which will be most profitable as the techniques are still in development,” O’Connor said.

Those products were among those recently made available through Veeco’s online store, where semiconductor, data storage, telecom/wireless and other researchers from around the world can get their hands on investigative tools.

Kania said Veeco likes to think of the vast number of universities and laboratories studying nanotech as the company’s research labs, calling Veeco “a natural starting point” for investigating new ideas.

“A day doesn’t go by that we don’t get a call and we do quick evaluations,” he said. “We’re not going to develop new materials or do the manufacturing, but we’ll give you the tools to do it.”

Aberdeen Group research director Russ Craig said research provides the bridge between science and business, adding that tools designed to better understand phenomena are an integral part.

“That stuff is extremely important to understanding how it is that you’re going to put nanotech to work,” Craig said. “What’s down in the lab has to be something that can be commercialized, so all of these research tools will give people the means to do that.”

Kania also pointed out the need to leverage the expertise of others and being open to the correct mix of disciplines in the wide-open world of nanotech. “There’s really been a convergence of tools and understanding and a growth of understanding,” Kania said. I don’t believe this is a flash in the pan. I think there is a fundamental shift in how people do problem-solving.”

Gruber said that with the various disciplines coming together on nanotech, modular technologies and business models in which companies are able to plug in different approaches are advantageous. “It just makes good sense in business to leverage others’ expertise,” Gruber said. “We do spend a lot of our time in that investigation and analysis. We’ve tried to focus on tools that will help us today and we’re constantly making new contacts.”

Jan. 13, 2003 — NanoInk Inc., a Chicago-based nanotechnology company, closed on a $6 million second round of financing, according to a news release.

The round was led by Lurie Investment Fund LLC and included undisclosed individual investors, a company spokeswoman said. NanoInk will use the funds to expand its management team, broaden its development efforts and accelerate delivery of its DPNWriter, a process instrument for nanoprinting scheduled for release in the first quarter of 2003.

NanoInk previously secured $3 million in first round funding last April. The round was led by Galway Partners LLC and Lurie Investment Fund.

Jan. 9, 2003 – Auburn, CA – A team of engineers formerly with IBM Microelectronics’ wireless division have formed a new radio and analog IC design company, Tahoe RF Semiconductor Inc.

Tahoe RF provides frontend circuit design and simulation all the way to backend layout, DRC/LVS, post-layout simulation, and fully packaged fabrication management using Cadence software, the new company said.

“This team has worked together over six years with repeated first silicon success,” noted Irshad Rasheed, Tahoe RF president. “Now we are pleased to continue as a team to provide customer-specific analog and RFIC chipsets, designs and IP to customers.”

“Forming Tahoe RF Semiconductor allows us to use our analog and RFIC experience in the same team setting that led the way at IBM,” stated Christopher Saint, VP of engineering and the author of two IC layout books. “As IBM reassessed its needs for in-house wireless design expertise, our primary focus was to keep this team together.”

The Tahoe RF Semiconductor team has designed, laid out, and fabricated many products, including an entire WCDMA wireless chipset with analog baseband filters, 2GHz direct down conversion receiver, dual transmit/receive WCDMA PLL/synthesizers, IF VGA circuits, RF VGA circuits, pseudo direct upconvert transmit chip, 2GHz quadrature generation and 4GHz VCO. Other recent projects include a JCDMA transmit/receive chipset with integrated frequency synthesizers, CMOS and ECL standard cell libraries, 8GHz RF divide by 4 and dual modulus dividers, and CDMA2000 IF downconverter.

Click here to enlarge image

Jan. 8, 2003 — For Alan Marty, the executive-in-residence at JPMorgan Partners charged with ferreting out nanotechnology-related investments, Optiva Inc. was the first nano company he found in a yearlong search that met two criteria: It had technology that could be commercialized within 18 months, and an existing market that could adopt the product in the same time frame.

Click here to enlarge image

On Tuesday, South San Francisco-based Optiva announced a second close of $21 million in third round financing. In addition to $9 million announced in June and $11.3 million raised in two previous rounds, the company has raised $41.3 million to date. The 60-person firm now intends to attack the liquid crystal display industry with an innovative new approach to making polarizers and other optical films for LCDs.

JPMorgan Partners led the second closing of the round with a $13.75 million investment and was joined by a trio of additional new investors that includes Korea’s Daehong Corp., DSM Venturing and Eastman Chemical Co. Existing investors Fidulex Management Inc., Harris & Harris Group, Merifin Capital N.V. and NextGen Partners LLC also participated.

Click here to enlarge image

“The polarizer market is a $1.1 billion market that already exists,” Marty said of Optiva’s near-term strategy. “It’s really a replacement market.”

Polarizing films, invented in the late 1920s by Polaroid founder Edwin Land, reduce glare and improve visibility for LCDs, sunglasses, glare-reducing windows and other products.

The LCD market is divided into passive matrix displays (calculators, watches and cell phones) and active matrix displays (laptops, flat-panel TVs and computer monitors). Especially for low-end displays, the polarizer can constitute as much as 30 percent of the cost.

Traditionally, 200-micron thick polarizers are applied as external laminates to LCDs. Optiva says it has invented a new class of self-assembling nanomaterials that give it the ability to print thin crystal film (TCF) structures on almost any type of surface. Its 300- to 400-nanometer polarizers could be coated onto the inside of the glass encasing an LCD. This makes for a simpler construction and makes the display more durable, according to Greg King, executive vice president in charge of operations and marketing. He said the result is a thinner, less-expensive display that allows for better viewing angles.

Pat Dunn, director of technology for DisplaySearch, an Austin, Texas, market research firm specializing in the flat panel display industry, said he discussed Optiva’s technology with major flat panel suppliers. “They feel the polarization’s efficiency is not high enough and that it will have reduced contrast [for active panels] … but for portable [passive] displays like you’d find in a cell phone, calculator or watch, it’s fine.” Top suppliers of passive matrix displays include AU Optronics, Casio, Epson, Samsung, Sharp, Seiko and Optrex.

King said Optiva’s initial customers would be on the passive matrix side. “It’s a pretty hyper-competitive market,” he said of the choice. “Everybody’s looking for ways to reduce prices.” He said the company’s roadmap calls for active matrix display products to be released later this year when the technology is more advanced.

However, the larger question is whether Optiva can displace entrenched polarizer vendors like Nitto Denko Corp. or Sanritz Corp., both of Japan. Dunn estimates they control roughly 85 percent of the world market.

“Polarizers work well enough,” said David Nakamura, president of Dana Enterprises of Fremont, Calif., Sanritz’s exclusive North American distributor. “Why reinvent the wheel when LCD manufacturing is incredibly refined at this point?”

Nakamura said Optiva’s approach means that LCD manufacturers must integrate the polarizer into the manufacturing process rather than add it at the end, which he said could create new quality control challenges.

King agreed that doing inline coating would be a more integrated approach and would require working very closely with customers. However, he challenged Nakamura’s quality control concerns and said Optiva’s more integrated and automated approach is actually an opportunity for higher yields. He also said Optiva will be offering its polarizers in the form of a conventional laminate for customers who prefer it that way.

Jan. 7, 2003 — Optiva Inc., a South San Francisco-based developer of nanomaterials for display applications, announced a second closing of $21 million to its oversubscribed Series C funding round, bringing the total for the round to $30 million.

Optiva first closed on $9 million in Series C funding in June 2002. At the time, the company said it was seeking a total of $15 million to $20 million.

New investor JPMorgan Partners led the funding. Daehong Corp., DSM Venturing and Eastman Chemical Co. also participated along with existing investors Fidulex Management Inc., Harris & Harris Group, Merifin Capital N.V. and NextGen Partners LLC.

Harris & Harris originally invested $500,000 in the company and added $750,000 with the second closing to make Optiva its largest nanotechnology-related investment. “As far as we’re concerned, the way that the financing has come together, the size of the financing, the participants in the financing, the leadership, the strengthening in the corporate governance … on a scale of one to 10 in terms of our expectations, this is a 10,” said Charles Harris, chief executive of the publicly traded venture capital firm.

Optiva’s first products are intended to make flat panel displays simpler to construct, thinner and more durable, according to the release. The company also announced that Rodney Ferguson and Alan Marty of JPMorgan Partners have joined its board of directors.

ZURICH, Dec. 27, 2002 — Only 15 percent of Europe’s more than 100 optical components suppliers, many of which are small tech firms, will survive in the medium term, according to research from Yole Developpement.

The Lyon, France-based research firm polled and profiled some 90 European optical components companies for its newest study. It concluded that the sector is facing rapid consolidation.

“What promised two years ago to be a killer application for MEMS and MOEMS manufacturers has turned into a “killed” application,” said Eric Mounier, the study’s lead author. There are many “me too” companies and startups with only one product on the market.

Click here to enlarge image

Other industry observers agree. “Too much money went into fiber optic application oriented firms,” said Antonio Oro of IDEA Consulting, a Zurich based optical investment firm.

More than $150 million was invested in privately owned firms in 2000, including Core Optics in Germany, ThreeFive Photonics in the Netherlands, Blaze Photonics and Intense Photonics in the United Kingdom, each of which raised early rounds of about $8 million on average.

Only the big players in photonics will survive, according to Mounier. He specifically mentioned Intel Corp., active in the sector since early 2002; JDS Uniphase, emerging strong from a period of restructuring; and Bookham Technologies, a U.K. university spinoff-turned-fast-growing-acquirer.

The investment wave enabled MEMS to emerge as a key technology for the next generation of optical telecommunications equipment suppliers, Mounier said. Engineers and scientists figured out how to put functions like switching, attenuating or tenability onto a semiconductor platform using small tech methods.

Despite the desperate situation in telecommunications, Oro and Mounier are both quick to point out that there is great growth in other areas of the optical MEMS industry. Optics is all around us, Oro said, referring to developments like traffic light LEDs that cut through surface glare and fog, or endoscopic surgical tools and lasers for cosmetic surgery. Those who can exploit existing “conventional” markets — automotive, IT or medical — according to Mounier, have opportunities for growth.

The notion that MEMS has significant potential even without fiber optics applications is backed by a recently published report from In-Stat/MDR, an Arizona-based firm. “Despite tough economic conditions overall, the market for Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) is growing,” says a report by In-Stat/MDR, written by analyst Marlene Bourne. The market research firm reported that worldwide revenues for MEMS are forecast to grow from $3.9 billion in 2001 to $9.6 billion in 2006.

In-Stat/MDR reported that as the market expands, sensors take a smaller share. In 2001, nonsensor devices comprised nearly a third of total MEMS revenues, whereas by 2006, they will account for almost half.

According to the report, the communications and consumer sectors still see the highest growth based on revenues through 2006, at 151.4 percent and 42.2 percent, respectively. However, the computer market will remain one of the largest revenue-generating segments, moving from second place in 2001, to first place in 2006. These are the kind of growth rates that are attractive to venture capitalists.

Anecdotal evidence suggests there are even some niches delivering growth in telecommunications, namely in testing instrumentation and nonfiber-optic markets. Swiss startup Alpes Lasers, based in Neuchatel, supplies San Diego-based Maxima Corp. with mid-infrared lasers used in free-space-optics (FSO) networking equipment. An FSO link is a wireless broadband technology that is relatively cheap compared to fiber optics. It can be installed at one-tenth the cost and deployed in one day without construction permits, say product vendors.

Geneva-based STMicroelectronics reports growth in its MEMS product range. Some 22 percent of the company’s sales, that is $1.38 billion in 2001, are generated by MEMS products targeted at hard disk manufacturers, optical mouse makers and game controllers. The division is growing at 10 percent a year, according to the latest annual report. Customers include Hewlett-Packard Co., Seagate Technology Inc., Microsoft Corp., and Western Digital Corp.

CoorsTek agrees to $220 million buyout

Dec. 23, 2002 – Golden, CO – CoorsTek Inc., a semiconductor equipment maker, would be acquired for more than $220 million by a private investment group led by top CoorsTek management and other members of the Coors brewing family.

In a separate statement, CoorsTek said 4Q revenue would be lower than previously expected because of weak results from its semiconductor capital equipment component and assembly segments, reported Reuters.

Keystone Holdings LLC, which is headed by CoorsTek Chairman, President, and CEO John Coors, will pay $26/share for the 8.6 million shares of CoorsTek it does not already own, CoorsTek said.

Coors and some other members of the group are descendants of Adolph Coors, founder of the Adolph Coors Co. brewing company.

CoorsTek said in November it had received a $21/share takeover offer from the group, which currently owns about 27% of its stock. In the deal, the group will assume about $104 million of CoorsTek debt and gain $51 million in cash in CoorsTek’s treasury.

The deal allows CoorsTek to seek other takeover offers until Jan. 10. The company would owe Keystone a $9 million breakup fee if it terminates the deal, it said.

CoorsTek, which has been hurt by a protracted downturn in the semiconductor industry, said it expects to report 4Q revenue of $79 to $82 million, representing an 18 to 21% decline from its 3Q numbers.