That’s really interesting, because I believe it all depends on the company. The question can arise, why should customers and funders buy and fund your products? In my opinion, if the company has a product that they believe can make money then funding will not be an issue. I believe companies should go for a projects. If the market is right and the product is able to work it should not be a problem. The project has to be convincing, and funders should know that they can get something in return. At the end of the day it’s all about how much money you would make out of this project.

The company should absolutely go for the project and here's why: Grants are not solely limited to academic institutions and non-profit companies. A for-profit company also has the ability to apply for grants. Large, well established companies may not need to take this route of funding a project but this is perfect for small start-up companies. The only cost to a company that finds itself in this situation is the time and resources it takes for any initial testing as well as writing up the proposal itself. This is a minimal investment and takes most of the pressure off the company in regards to whether or not the company should pursue the project. Instead, the potential funder would be mainly responsible for deciding if the project is truly promising and worth pursuing.

Yes I would agree that now days most important concern is about funding of medical devices in financial world and this would affect humans as all living beings indirectly rely on medical devices. It has become difficult to gain investors attention for convincing them for finance. Money are going mainly into non med-tech sectors. The reason behind this is they do not want to take any risks for their money.So the fundamental reason is risk vs return. Though after knowing this reason my question is what should be done what are solutions to this?

I believe that the company needs to decide using a risk-based approach. The medical device industry is governed by risk and because of that each decision made should account for potential setbacks that may arise. If the project is a definite source of revenue then it should be pursued. However, if the company has priorities (defined by upper management) then the project may be put on hold or scrapped. One also needs to keep in mind the available resources. Coming back to what I mentioned, projects should be pursued if they will bring money to the company. Launching new products are exciting but non-successful ones are not. Another thing to mention is that you can get a patent for any idea however profitable patents really make the difference. Non-profitable patents do not.

What I find to be actually pretty interesting now is that we're in the age of Kickstarter. Scientists and engineer who have innovative ideas are actually able to bypass much of the needed fundraising by simply setting up pages, displaying the ideas behind their devices, and having strangers fund them on the criteria that the funders would gain benefit in some way. The concept is the same as finding traditional investors -- they give the innovator money and gain something back in profit. However, in this case, the number of investors is usually in the hundreds or thousands, depending on the amount being raised.

Therefore, it hasn't been hard to find medical devices that have been placed on the Kickstarter page that have gained investors, such as Fever Smart: A Thermometer for Kids which sends information directly to the user's smart phone.

sadly to say that But you may have the greatest idea but if the companies think it's not going to bring enough revenue they may turn the project down. you need to know how to market your idea to attract investors. it's not easy to market the idea, in the beginning, people always tend to like finalized the working product. Many companies don't want the risk associated with the new project. Also, Business and revenue play a big role on development. I have seen project turned down in favor for business reasons however it is a great idea and can help human

I think that the company should definitely explore ways that they could take on that project if they really believe in its potential even if they don't have the funding. For a small new company there are many different avenues they could go down to end up with the funding that they need. Small start-up companies can try to take out a loan if they are able or they could try to attract venture capitalists, angel investors, use crowdfunding sites such as kickstarter, obtain a small business grant, or even trading equity for funding. Even with these outside options this can be a risky way to fund your project and it should only be done if you really believe in your project and believe that it will generate enough business to be worth it.

I think this is interesting because I want to say that companies should go for it. For established companies, they would have ann easier time looking to the future and establishing new ideas than a company more involved with competition and needing to consider the risk more over reward. That being said, I want all companies to invest in the "future" designs because that will respectively be our generation, and hopefully lead to a more progressive . But on the other hand, it is tough because we may be thinking to far into the future and "digging our own grave". It's a dangerous situation for companies to fund projects if they only look at the business aspect, yet not progressing with futuristic projects is a way to lose interest as well. It is a tricky situation.

I think that all the companies should go forward with the initial planning of the the project. Once the project is proposed, there is a chance the company might getting funding. It not, it was always a good risk to take and continue with the project because it will earn back the money that was spent on it and possibly even more after a few years. Taking such big risks like this is something company will always be worried about because it is a lot of money that is invested. But that's how it should be looked like. As an investment so that you get much better profits in the long run. These projects should start because a company can take loans if needed.

I think that when a company sees potential in a project they should continue to pursue it. High potential projects have the opportunity of getting funding or investments from outsider supporters. Taking a risk is part of starting a company and moving it forward. High risk and successful projects have the ability to earn back the invested money and so much more. Trying to play it safe and not taking risks can result in the failure of companies because they're not showing the consumers something new.

To add to the conversation, it is first to file in the U.S.-this means that if this really is a good idea for a commercially viable product, you should file before a potential competitor does. It used to be that if you kept documentation, lab notebooks, records etc you could be determined as claiming patent rights. However now it really is first to file, so for example if you filed February 12, 2018 but someone else filed February 9, 2018. The company that filed February 9th would be fist to file and considered having that priority filing date. As others have mentioned you need to evaluate to weigh the risks and benefits to see if it is worth exploring avenues for funding. If you are trying to obtaining funding to make a prototype to then file a patent, you should not use kickstarter or disclose publicly because then that would be considered a public disclosure and could be used against you as prior art.

The funding of a project is dependent on the corporate strategy. If a medical device corporation aims to improves preventative healthcare, the company will take on projects that align with prevent diseases. This can be screening technology or improvement to implants that may introduce disease complication. If the project fills a highly desirable market gap, without a doubt the company should allocate funds to the project. However, if the project does not align with the corporation's mission, then the company should not lose focus on funding the project. There are instances that such a project might be so promising that it calls for the company to extend their strategy to penetrate a new market sector. In these cases, a careful risk analysis must be evaluated to ensure the success in investment to expanding the company.

As someone who has never worked in industry, I'm curious to know what happens when a project does get scrapped. I'm sure the repercussions would be determined by the size of the company, but if a project loses funding or gets derailed for some reason what happens to the employees who were working on that project? I'm sure for larger companies the project team can be reassigned to other projects, but what about smaller companies? Does anyone have experience with being on the team of a project that has been canceled or has lost funding? Is job security something that is a constant worry when working in the project based medical device industry?

All projects start off initially with an idea, then the idea if interesting is further discussed upon among group all the important members of the company and if they find it has potential, they move forward with the idea or else the idea gets scrapped of then and there, or sometimes allocated a limited amount of funding. Many of the ideas that have potential don't get funding as sometimes the amount needed is huge, also most times the people who give out the funding are a businessman and all they need is a good return of investment on the project they are funding. So if the risk factor of the project is low then it will attract funders but if the risk factor of the project is more then it will be very difficult to find an investor. These are the factors why I think most ideas don't get the funding.