The Ingelwood, Calif.-based firm said it was changing its name to “AmaginAb,” because most of the successful firms in biotech have names that start with the letter ‘A” and “we were forced to acknowledge that we might never get acquired with a name that starts with ‘I’,” said CEO Christian Behrenbruch.

Plus, the new name better reflected its “overall awesomeness.”

But never fear. ImaginAb is really keeping its name, so don’t rush to update your Outlook contacts or rolodexes. The firm said it opted for this April Fools’ Day stunt because “we are hiring and wanted your attention.”

Well played, ImaginAb. Well played.

The year also saw lawmakers get into the bipartisan spirit, passing both FDASIA and the JOBS Act. As we head into 2013, it will be interesting to see how those regulatory additions – such as the GAIN legislation aimed at giving antibiotic developers a leg up and the provision allowing for small firms to consider going public as an emerging growth company – may affect the industry.

But first, let’s take a look at some of the notable stories and trends in biopharma over the past 12 months.

Obesity Drugs Score Approvals. Finally!

After striking out at the FDA over the past two years, two of the big three obesity drugs won approval in 2012. Vivus Inc.’s Qsymia (phentermine/topiramate) and Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Belviq (lorcaserin) hit the market. It’s too early to judge market uptake – though analysts have been monitoring Qsymia’s launch on a weekly basis – but the approvals are at the very least a sign that the FDA is considering obesity a serious health concern and those first two nods could pave the way for more obesity drug approvals in the future.

While Qsymia and Belviq topped the most exciting approvals in 2012, according to BioWorld’s informal poll, the year was full of other FDA nods. Irritable bowel syndrome drug Linzess came in second in the BioWorld poll, followed by cystic fibrosis drug Kalydeco, prostate cancer treatment Xtandi and recently approved medullary thyroid cancer drug Cometriq. But plenty of other drugs easily could have made the list – Stribald, formerly known as Btripla, for HIV; Bydureon’s hard-won approval in Type II diabetes; Erivedge, the first hedgehog inhibitor to reach market; Aubagio for multiple sclerosis; cancer drug Kyprolis; Lucentis’ approval as the first new drug for diabetic macular edema in more than 50 years; and Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Iclusig (which, at three months ahead of its PDUFA date, came in just under the wire to make the 2012 list.)

Glybera Celebrates Victory at Long Last

But no approval in 2012 proved a bigger triumph than Glybera, the first gene therapy to (finally) gain approval. After some back and forth at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and its Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), the CHMP awarded a positive recommendation in July, followed by the EMA’s official stamp of approval in November. It wasn’t easy; the drawn-out process drove developer Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics into bankruptcy, forcing it to divest Glybera into newly formed private company uniQure BV. But the approval marks not only a big win for the gene therapy space, it also signals a change in the at least European regulators assess clinical benefit in rare diseases, given that application for Glybera included data from a mere 27 patients. The advent of gene therapy, a one-off treatment vs. the typical daily or weekly administration, in the marketplace also stands to change reimbursement policies in order to accommodate those types of long-term treatment options.

HCV’s ‘Nuc’lear Fallout

At last year’s JP Morgan conference, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.’s execs couldn’t help gloating over their $2.5 billion acquisition of Inhibitex Inc. After all, it was hardly the whopping $11 billion Gilead Sciences Inc. paid for fellow hepatitis C virus (HCV) drug developer Pharmasset Inc., a price many analysts at the time considered much too high, particularly considering the growing competition to get an all-oral HCV regimen to market.

But a big mushroom cloud appeared over the space during the summer, and when the dust settled, BMS was pretty much out of the picture, having discontinued its nucleoside HCV drug due to toxicity issues. The news also affected other “nuc” programs, most notably Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s IDX19368, which was placed on clinical hold. Meanwhile, positive data just keep coming for Gilead, which is entering 2013 easily poised as one the lead contenders for an all-oral regimen.

New Battle Lines Drawn in Amyloid-beta/Tau Debate

The HCV space was advancing like gangbusters, but other areas were not so fortunate in 2012. With all the Phase III readouts, drugs targeting Alzheimer’s disease could have been the year’s top success story; Instead, detractors of the amyloid-beta theory gained ammunition in the ongoing amyloid-beta-vs.-tau battle. First, there was the Phase III implosion of bapineuzumab – the headline in BioWorld Today said it all: “J&J-Pfizer’s Alzheimer’s Drug Crashes, Burns in Phase III.” That news was promptly followed by the Phase III miss of Eli Lilly and Co.’s solanezumab, though Lilly isn’t ready to admit defeat yet. Those failures, however, came as no surprise to those who fall on the tau tangle side of the Alzheimer’s argument. TauRx Therapeutics Inc.’s Claude Wischik even told BioWorld in November that it never made “any sense to us that people think going after amyloid” would make a dent in the disease. TauRx is putting the tau theory to the test, getting ready to launch a Phase III program testing tau aggregation inhibitor LMTX, though we likely won’t see any data before 2015.

In the meantime, the case for amyloid-beta seems to be taking its cues from Monty Python – it’s not dead yet. A November talk at the National Institutes of Health had Harvard University’s Jie Shen discussing early stage research concluding that amyloid-beta definitely has “something to do with the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease.” So it looks like the debate is destined to go on to see whether amyloid-beta, tau or a newer Alzheimer’s target might become the Holy Grail in biopharma’s ongoing efforts to treat the devastating neurodegenerative disease.

‘It’s the [Patent] Cliffs of Insanity!’

While politicians spent the last few months of the year sounding off about the so-called fiscal cliff, big pharma finally found itself standing at the edge of its own sheer drop in 2012, staring down into the abyss of lost profits. After years of predictions from industry experts, pharma firms finally started to feel the initial impact as once-blockbuster products began smashing upon the rocks. Pfizer Inc., for instance, saw a 19 percent cut in first-quarter profits stemming from the patent expiration for top-selling cholesterol drug Lipitor and in September saw its credit rating downgraded by Fitch. And it wasn’t alone. AstraZeneca plc’s CEO David Brennan stepped down in April amid shareholder pressure as the London-based big pharma reported staggering drops in sales thanks to generic competition to products such as Nexium (esomeprazole) and Merrem (meropenem). And, on the eve of reporting its third-quarter earnings, Eli Lilly and Co. saw its own ratings lowered by Fitch, which called Lilly’s looming patent cliff “the steepest in the industry,” citing potential losses of antidepressant Cymbalta (duloxetine) and Type I diabetes drug Humalog (lispro) coming next year.

The good news is that, as the threats to its bottom line materialized, big pharma seemed much more willing to try new strategies. The past year saw the industry employ some new and interesting approaches to ramping up drug development – the launch of Transcelerate BioPharma Inc. is a good example, along with the rise in academic partnerships such as GSK’s December deal with MD Anderson. Perhaps if big pharmas can find more ways to foster innovation, they won’t end up in the Pit of Despair.

And, in the ‘Don’t Count Your Chickens’ Column . . .

If you’re going to present stellar clinical data, you’d better make sure those results are accurate. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. learned that lesson in May when it revealed that its previously reported Phase II results for the cystic fibrosis combination of Kalydeco plus VX-809 were a little off the mark: Instead of 46 percent of patients showing improved lung function, the actual results were 35 percent. That 11 percent disparity sent shares of Vertex sinking 10 percent that day.

But that turned out to be nothing compared to Peregrine Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s gaffe a few months later. In what has to be the Biggest Oops for 2012, execs of the Tustin, Calif.-based firm found themselves choking down a few mouthfuls of crow after they had to return to investors with the admission that the survival data from the much-lauded Phase IIb lung cancer trial of bavituximab might not have been so impressive after all. The company cited “major discrepancies” in the findings, which it attributed to an independent third party contracted to code and distribute investigational drug product. Peregrine launched an investigation to determine the extent of the data disparity and, while that investigation is still ongoing, the company’s shares – and perhaps, credibility – have yet to fully recover. To add insult to injury, Peregrine shortly after received a default notice for the $15 million in initial funding under a $30 million term loan, due to the data discrepancies, though the company managed to scrape together $14.3 million in an at-market agreement to replace that funding.

The lesson? Make sure you’ve got your ducks in a row to avoid a data discrepancy debacle like Peregrine’s.

Let’s hope everyone heeds that advice in 2013.

From all of us at BioWorld, thanks for reading, and have a happy new year!

Wear comfortable shoes. Leave the fancy Italian loafers and stilettos at home. You’re going to be doing A LOT of walking. Trust us on this.

To avoid groan-inducing BioClichés, take a refresher course in what NOT to say. Yes, we dusted this one off from last year because people tend to forget and fall back into the same ruts.

Bring your clone. If only you had a doppelganger to rove the exhibit hall and a daytime you to navigate the session and partnering zones of the demanding bi(o)athlon attendee region, you could carouse the party scene as primetime you and cut your foot miles in half! Cloning . . . biotech can do that – can’t it? Because, you probably wouldn’t have any ethical issues with that for this week!

Learn the Bio-centric variation of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Use your non-cell phone hand to play, in order to get through that over-your-head roundtable discussion or while waiting in the free wine line on exhibitor reception night. Makes a great networking icebreaker, too!

- Innovation creates Products (Indomitable Fist)

- Products generate Revenue (Thumbs up)

- Capital buys Innovation (Open handshake)

Pick up your badge early, if possible. It’s also a good idea to familiarize yourself with the convention hall before you’re racing to a last-minute meeting. The Boston Convention & Exhibition Center might seem more compact than the sprawling McCormick Place in Chicago (where many of you recently spent a frantic ASCO weekend), but getting lost in the 1.7 million-square-foot facility will cost you precious time – and add unnecessary foot fatigue.

Use the proper Twitter hashtag. The two most important ones: #BIO2012 and #BioWorld.

Bring a Chowdahrometer, to gauge which local establishment truly makes the best clam chowdah.

Queue up early. If you’re looking forward to the keynote luncheons, make arrangements to get in line early because the lines will snake around the convention center for miles.

Support the pharmaceutical industry. Remember to pack some aspirin, maybe even some Blowfish tablets. The parties at BIO can be legendary, and you don’t want to miss that early morning meeting due to a hangover.

Study up on your Boston English. Here’s a good guide. For instance, don’t worry about those disappearing “Rs.” They usually show up later, i.e. “Open the desk draw for some paper, so I can drawr you a map.” If someone offers you “clam chowdah,” say yes. If they call you a “chowdahead,” that’s not a compliment in Beantown. (Also, you should probably not refer to Boston as “Beantown.” We’ve heard that locals don’t care for that moniker.)

Did we say that you should wear comfortable shoes? We can’t stress this enough.

Support the medical device industry. Pack a shoulder replacement for when the briefcase or bag loaded with a laptop, handouts, etc. gets too heavy.

Make an appointment with a personal masseuse for the end-of-the-day wrap. Go ahead, indulge. You deserve it. And surely you can find some way to write it off.

Bring a universal translator to wade through the financial, legal, regulatory and scientific terminology-speak.

Pack your mental Rolodex, one with automatic face-recognition prompts for all those people you’ve met at previous conferences.

Don’t forget the freakin chargers! For smartphones, laptops, iPad, the razor, the toothbrush and you.

For newbies and seasoned veterans alike, bring dark glasses to hide that dazed look.

Speaking of newbies, this is BioWorld Staff Writer Marie Powers’ very first BIO meeting and says she feels like Gretl from the Sound of Music: “It will be my first party!” Marie’s starter kit includes:

- A re-emphasis on, guess what? Flats only for women, though she deftly adds a package of moleskin.

- Sunglasses and trench coat for the Boston weather extremes.

- Communications gear out the wazoo. (phones, cameras, digital recorder, GPS, netbook, iPad, laptop . . . ) Marie says, “I’ve heard Arianna Huffington works five (!) cell phones. It’s a good thing she doesn’t cover biotech. I’m stickin’ with one.”

- Business cards. Yes Gretl, they still make those paper cards even if recipients will just scan them in and convert/add to their electronic contacts list.

- Tums!

Bring your personal podiatrist. (If you didn’t listen to us about the shoes . . .) This could be covered under preventative care by your carrier until around noon Monday, but once your feet start to shut down in early afternoon protest, it should be claimable under routine care for the rest of the week. Besides, he may accompany and treat you gratis, given his potential for walk-up business!

Ear plugs might help. BIO is a cacophonous event. Next to the feet, ears get the most grueling workout and they also serve as the entry point for most end-of-day headaches. Either you’re making noise or you’re subjected to it: non-stop cell phone chatter, 30,000 shoes clacking, the clamor of 5,000 booth hawkers, the din of flash mob networking and a hysterical Siri vociferously trying to comprehend and resolve 10,000 bio-speak requests.

Don’t forget the calorie counter, as you eat and drink your way through BIO fare. How many crab cakes can you eat in a week?

Pick up a commemorative BioWorld BIO 2012 Boston hat to wear to a Red Sox game Thursday night. Find us at booth #1357 in the exhibit hall.

Remember to look up. C’mon, your emails can wait a nanosecond or two. Make a new friend live and in person. You can trade numbers and emails and start texting later.

Finally, grab a Freedom Trail map. Go ahead, play hooky for an hour or two and trace 250 years of American history.

Given Icahn’s personal track record in the sector over the past few years – ImClone Systems Inc., MedImmune Inc. and Genzyme Corp. all landed acquisitions, though he was unsuccessful in facilitating a sale of Biogen Idec Inc. – Amylin’s days as an independent firm could be numbered.

Certainly there are arguments in favor of Amylin’s sale, most notably last year’s exit of exenatide partner Eli Lilly and Co., which left the company pitting its modest sales force against larger and more established teams from competing firms Novo Nordisk A/S and Sanofi SA. A big pharma acquirer also could help grow the markets for Byetta and recently approved Bydureon faster than Amylin on its own, and even get metreleptin, under review for lipodystrophy, off to a strong launch.

I can’t help but wonder, though, whether selling a biotech like Amylin – one which has a growing revenue stream from marketed products, with more to come – is really the best thing for the industry. Sure, investors such as Icahn will pocket substantial profits, some of which might actually go back into earlier-stage drug development ventures. But are those near-term profits worth eliminating the chance to build long-term shareholder value?

And, on a perhaps admittedly idealistic note, shouldn’t it be acceptable to ask investors for a little more patience, given the time frames in biotech – where it takes more than a decade to get from discovery to market – as well as the industry’s spirit of risk, innovation and entrepreneurship? After all, biotech is tackling complex biological discoveries, not building the proverbial better mouse traps.

There’s already talk of the U.S. life sciences industry facing a decline – government funding and venture capital have been trending downward – compared to other regions and emerging markets. It seems a no-brainer that the sector would be in a better position to thrive if more firms are allowed the time to truly build shareholder value. But that won’t happen if Icahn and his ilk keep trading that long-term value for cash to pad their already immense bank accounts.

Will Icahn’s involvement in Amylin end up in the company’s sale? Check out BioWorld’s informal poll at www.bioworld.com

The past year brought the biotech sector a mixed bag of news. Some of it was positive – for instance, the FDA picked up its drug approval pace in 2011 and, in some cases, even surprised the most hardened biotech investors by granting approval of some drugs a month or two before their PDUFA dates – while other headlines hailed discouraging trends such as the failure of Prospect Ventures to close its latest round, confirming predictions of a venture capital contraction.

As we get ready to head into 2012 (and possibly an apocalyptic count-down, if those Mayans are to be believed), let’s take a look back at some of the highs and lows of the biotech industry in 2011.

‘Me-First’ Instead of ‘Me-Too’

Biotech execs always talk about tackling unmet medical needs. So it was exciting to see in 2011 the flurry of breakthrough drugs hitting the market. An informal BioWorld poll tagged Seattle Genetics Inc.’s lymphoma drug Adcetris (brentuximab vedotin), the first approved antibody-drug conjugate, as the biggest drug approval of the year, tied with HCV game-changers Incivek (telaprevir) from Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Victrelis (boceprevir) from Merck & Co. Inc. But other notable approvals included Human Genome Sciences Inc.’s Benlysta (belimumab), the first lupus drug approved in 50-plus years, and Yervoy (ipilimumab) from Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Zelboraf (vemurafenib) from Roche AG and Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. as the first two drugs approved for melanoma that actually improved overall survival in clinical testing. And, late in the year, Incyte Corp. scored a win with Jakafi (ruxolitinib), the first approved JAK inhibitor and the first drug for myelofibrosis.

Let’s all hope that trend of “firsts” continues in 2012.

A ‘Nobel’ Death

In a bit of irony (in an Alanis Morissette kind of way), the Nobel committee awarded one-half of the 2011 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine to Ralph Steinman, unaware that the Rockefeller University professor had died of pancreatic cancer three days earlier. Posthumous Nobels are unusual but, after brief debate, the committee wisely decided to allow Steinman to remain a Nobelist. And I’m glad. He certainly earned the title for his discovery of the dendritic cell and its role in adaptive immunity. Plus, according to BioWorld’s science editor, Anette Breindl, who heard Steinman speak in 2007, he was a pretty nice guy.

Best Bang for the Buck?

The biggest M&A deal in 2011 was easily Sanofi SA’s $20-billion-plus-contingent value rights buyout of Genzyme Corp., which followed nine months of often less-than-friendly negotiations. But it wasn’t the best deal for biotech investors. Genzyme shareholders already have lost out on the $1 CVR connected to manufacturing capacity for enzyme replacement therapies Cerezyme and Fabrazyme. Whether they will be able to earn the remaining $13 linked to multiple sclerosis drug Lemtrada (alemtuzumab) is up for debate, and, for the most part, analysts are not optimistic.

If I were to choose, I’d say that Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd.’s bid for Plexxikon Inc. and Shire plc’s buyout of Advanced BioHealing Inc. were far more successful M&A deals. Daiichi’s hefty $935 million payment for Plexxikon – a move validated when Zelboraf gained approval in August – came despite only getting U.S. co-promotion rights to the melanoma drug under Plexxikon’s existing partnership with Roche AG. The Shire/ABH deal, meanwhile, showcased the kind of investor returns rarely seen these days. The big pharma firm shelled out $750 million for ABH, a whopping 15x return for ABH’s largest shareholder.

‘Weighed’ Down by Safety

Despite health experts clamoring for new ways to treat the so-called obesity epidemic, drugs aimed at helping people lose weight have not had an easy time of it at the FDA. Industry observers had expected 2011 to usher in not one, but three obesity therapies; instead, all three were rejected by the FDA. Orexigen Inc.’s Contrave got stalled on cardiovascular concerns, while Vivus Inc.’s Qnexa raised worries of birth defects related to one of its generic components and Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Lorquess bumped up against carcinogenicity concerns. Contrave is set to start a large cardiovascular outcomes study, which would delay its approval until 2014. But Qnexa and Lorquess could have a shot at getting approved in 2012. That’s assuming that no additional safety issues crop up. Given the track record in the obesity space, that’s definitely no guarantee.

The Rough Side of Town

While 2011 had its much-lauded drug approvals (as noted above), the year was not without its disappointments. Two promising areas of research suffered blows – Roche pulled out of the RNAi space, dumping a high-dollar collaboration with RNAi powerhouse Alnylam Inc., while Geron Inc. abandoned its position as embryonic stem cell pioneer to focus on a less-risky cancer drug. But the biggest disappointment of the year – as chosen by 41 percent of respondents to a BioWorld poll – was the slow sales of Dendreon Corp.’s prostate cancer vaccine Provenge (sipuleucel-T). Sales fell way below estimates, and, over the course of the year, Dendreon’s shares have lost about 80 percent of their value. The Seattle-based company has since retrenched and is hoping European approval, now pending, will help accelerate revenue growth. We’ll be watching in 2012.

And the Strange Bedfellows Award Goes to . . .

Probably one of the most bizarre deals ever in biotech was 2011’s short-lived merger agreement between Allos Therapeutics Inc. and AMAG Pharmaceuticals Inc. Having in common only commercially underperforming products – Allos’ Folotyn (pralatrexate) for peripheral T-cell lymphoma and AMAG's iron deficiency drug Feraheme (ferumoxytol) – execs from both firms tried hard to convince investors and analysts of the logic in combining the companies by pointing out a handful of “cost synergies.” But the merger was met with opposition from the get-go and even prompted hedge fund MSMB Capital Management to make an unsolicited bid for AMAG. Unsurprisingly, the deal was voted down by AMAG shareholders. Seriously, what were they thinking?

Well, that’s my list of headline-grabbing biotech news in 2011. But it’s hard to remember a whole year, and I’m sure I’ve forgotten something. What do you think were the biggest events in biotech in 2011?

I admit it is frustrating to write about companies that are launching yet another Phase III study, because they claim their drug’s “really going to work this time.” And the skyrocketing drug development costs are one reason my fellow Americans and I are paying a fortune every month for health care.

During a Tuesday plenary session, some even asked why biotech can’t operate as efficiently as the technology sector, where seemingly bad ideas are scrapped before they can gain too much financial traction. That doesn’t sound like a bad idea, right? Let’s turn drug development into a factory-like process: advance programs quickly and kill the ones that don’t immediately perform.

In other words, take the go-no go decision out of the hands of the people who invented the drug or the people whose jobs are tied to its success. Create a dispassionate drug development process.

But as BIO’s John Craighead noted, “’dispassionate’ is not a very good word for this industry in general,” and I would have to agree.

Biotech has been built on the backs of scientists working long hours and executives who sometimes seem to champion a drug through the development process by sheer will alone, convincing investors to take a risk on a new – and therefore risky – invention. And more than one biotech has relied on funding from its own founders either to establish the firm or keep it afloat during tough times.

Yes, at the end of the day, the data are what counts. But to get to that data, sometimes there needs to be an extra little push along the way. Because innovation has never been easy.

And this isn’t the technology industry. Biotech isn’t obsessed with making cell phones that can communicate with Mars or a laptop that can fit inside your pocket. Biotech is working on medications that could improve lives or extend lives, possibly even save lives.

So maybe it’s all right to get a little passionate now and then.

Coming up with a good name is important. You need a name that speaks to your cause – and is easy to speak. After all, there will be many a presentation in your future, and you can’t afford to lose valuable time on pronunciation lessons.

But more than that, a good name is a way to impress other brainiacs in the biotech space, a way to show your colleagues that you’re more than a scientist – you’re a great reader of history and mythology, you appreciate art and opera, you are a sophisticate, you have traveled the world. Or maybe you just have a well-developed sense of irony. Or a serious yen for a really good pun.

I remember interviewing the CEO of a start-up company for BioWorld’s NewCo News series on AltraVax Inc. and, when I asked how the company got it’s the name, the CEO joked, “Well, it wasn’t easy. All the Greek gods and monsters were taken.”

Really, though, any Greek word will do, especially if there’s a connection to medicine. Here are some of my favorites:

2009 start-up Euthymics Bioscience Inc., named for a Greek word meaning “good mood,” appropriate since its lead program is in major depressive disorder;

Calithera Biosciences Inc., whose name comes from the Greek word “kallos,” meaning “harmony” or “symmetry”;

Ikaria Inc., named after the Greek island renowned for the healing qualities of its waters and home to the mythical Icarus;

U.S.-Chinese start-up Ascletis Inc., named after Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine;

Epiomed Therapeutics Inc., named by combining the Greek goddess of relieving pain, Epione, combined with the word “medicine”:

and execs at Oncothyreon Inc. doubled up on their Greek, combining the words for “tumor” and “shield” when creating its moniker.

There are many others. And, hey, Latin words are big, too. There’s Senex Biotechnology Inc., working on drugs for aging whose name means “old” in Latin. Aestus Therapeutics Inc.’s name comes from the Latin word meaning “passionate fire,” and Vicept Therapetuics Inc. combined “vita,” meaning life, and “receptus,” meaning to take back.

Sometimes founders pull from their own inspirations. For instance, I’ve talked to execs who christened their firms after their favorite sports teams (Chelsea Therapeutics Inc.), while others have gone for the names of locations or nearby towns (Coronado Biosciences Inc.)

And, sometimes, there seems a bit of a superstitious connection. When coming up with a name for his latest venture, biotech entrepreneur Alan Auerbach clearly is hoping to carry a little good will from his previous success with Cougar Biotechnology Inc. And it might be working. His new firm, Puma Biotechnology Inc. closed a $55 million private placement just last week. (Perhaps if Puma succeeds, Auerbach will return with Panther Biotechnology or Catamount Biotechnology.)

Clever names also make for some interesting partnerships as well. For instance, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals Inc., named after a hardwood tree, has a deal with Forest Laboratories Inc. There’s also the proofreader’s nightmare of a partnership between Clavis Pharma ASA and Clovis Oncology Inc.

And, seriously folks, am I the only one waiting with fingers crossed for a licensing deal uniting Osiris Therapeutics Inc. with its counterpart of Egyptian myth, Isis Pharmaceuticals Inc.? The geek-out headline potential alone would be more than worth it.

But that’s me.

Got a favorite biotech company name? We’d love to hear it!

Then Dendreon Corp.’s Provenge (sipuleucel-T) hit its Phase III survival endpoints and won FDA approval in 2010, and suddenly cancer vaccines were back in vogue. But was it just a passing fad?

Provenge’s stunningly bad sales launch – the reasons are up for debate: the modest survival data, the required learning curve for physician administration, the steep price tag, take your pick – may have been enough to dampen enthusiasm for the entire space.

Case in point: ImmunoCellular Therapeutics Ltd. presented some pretty promising data Monday from a glioblastoma multiforme study, showing a three-year overall survival rate of 55 percent in patients receiving dendritic cell-based vaccine ICT-107, compared to 16 percent for historical standard of care.

True, those data are early – the trial is only a Phase I – yet the numbers are still impressive. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics reported that 38 percent of newly diagnosed patients who received who received ICT-107 continue to show no tumor recurrence after three years, compared 6 percent historical control, and out of those patients, 19 percent remain disease-free after more than four years.

But the company’s stock reaction Monday? Virtually nil. The penny stock barely budged (which really is too bad given that the firm had taken its probably-undeserved lumps in the wake of Dendreon’s news last month).

But it may be a sign that, after a brief celebratory period, cancer vaccines got a nasty shove back to the starting point, and companies working in that space will be tasked with slowly earning their way back into investors’ good graces.

Maybe it’s time to try out another new name?