Labviva Showcases Advanced AI Procurement Tools at the R&D Procurement and Sourcing in Pharma Summit 2025

Global leader in source-to-pay solutions for life sciences to showcase an array of automated procurement technologies
Labviva at R&D Procurement & Sourcing in Pharma Summit
BOSTON, June 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Labviva, the leading AI procurement platform for life sciences, today announced its plans to demonstrate how pharmaceutical and biotech companies can leverage AI for laboratory procurement to drive cost and resource efficiencies and accelerate the pace of scientific innovation. The company will showcase its purchasing platform and inventory management solution (IMS) and plans to debut a new AI solution at the R&D Procurement & Sourcing in Pharma Summit, located at the Hilton Boston Logan Airport on June 24-26.
Co-presenting panel on 'Modernizing Inventory Management: How Neutral Models Are Enabling Smarter Lab Operations'
This panel will focus on lessons learned, change leadership, and value delivered through a vendor-neutral approach to inventory management. It will also highlight:
How Takeda modernized its lab supply strategy with a vendor-agnostic, data-driven approach to inventory management
How a neutral model improved visibility, reduced waste, and gave Takeda more control over their supply needs
How Boston Lab Services and Labviva partnered to deliver automation, flexibility, and operational excellence
Actionable insights for transforming procurement from a cost center into a strategic R&D enabler
The talk will take place at the R&D Procurement & Sourcing in Pharma Summit at 10:00 a.m. on June 26. It will be moderated by Kleida Martiro, Partner at Glasswing Ventures and panelists include Hillary Ferrer, R&D Operations at Takeda, Andrew Petterelli, Procurement at Takeda, Elden Lainez, CEO of Boston Lab Services and Nick Rioux, CTO of Labviva.
Labviva's R&D Procurement Cocktail Reception
Show attendees and members of the press can RSVP for Labviva's cocktail event which takes place at the Hilton Boston Logan Airport, One Hotel Dr, Boston, MA 02128, on June 24th from 5:00pm-6:00pm.
'At the R&D Procurement & Sourcing in Pharma Summit, we plan to demonstrate the value of modernizing research procurement processes using AI automation,' said Siamak Baharloo, CEO of Labviva. 'In an era of tariffs and trade wars, compliance and efficiency are king. And with Labviva, pharmaceutical procurement teams enjoy improved transparency, diverse supplier access, broad product and pricing options, and the inventory controls they need to ensure compliance, supply chain security, and mass efficiencies while maintaining complete control of their data.'
To schedule a meeting or press interview with Labviva, please contact Jennifer Olszewski at jolszewski@labviva.com
About LabvivaLabviva connects researchers with suppliers of reagents, chemicals, and instrumentation in an intuitive, user-friendly platform that supports the priorities of scientists while staying compliant with purchasing rules. Suppliers can easily manage the content of their products, and products are mapped into scientific applications, techniques and protocols. To learn more about how Labviva accelerates the science of life, visit us at www.labviva.com.
Media Contacts:Jennifer OlszewskiLabviva917-445-4454jolszewski@labviva.com
or
Michael IngallsPenVine for Labviva917-494-4909michael@penvine.com
A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/a5fe564d-3240-47df-8c97-ba3e923adf54Sign in to access your portfolio

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

24 minutes ago

• Forbes

New Jersey Anti-SLAPP Law Applies In Part In Federal Court In Paucek

The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are split on the application of Anti-SLAPP laws in the federal ... More courts. Chip Paucek had been the CEO of a company (U2, Inc.) which had failed under some negative circumstances. Paucek is now the CEO of a new company (Pro-Athlete Community, Inc. a/k/a "PAC") which provides educational and other support to professional athletes who have ceased playing. Paucek came to the attention of Dahn Shaulis, who is a blogger covering the education industry through his publication Higher Education Inquirer ("HEI"). After following Paucek's failure with U2, Shaulis then began to investigate and cover Paucek's new venture, PAC. Long story short, Shaulis made some unflattering comments about Paucek on social media. Paucek had his attorney send Shaulis a cease-and-desist letter which also called for Shaulis to retract the offending comments. Shaulis agreed to do so, but only on terms that were unacceptable to Paucek. The day after receiving Paucek's cease-and-desist letter, Shaulis then posted on social media that he had received the letter but that he stood by the statements therein based on a variety of information. Paucek then sued Shaulis in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Paucek alleged that Shaulis' social media posts were defamatory and that Shaulis had intentionally interfered with Paucek's prospective business relations. Shaulis responded by filing a motion to first determine if the New Jersey Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") applied in federal court and which of several states' Anti-SLAPP laws should be applied to this controversy. The idea here was that the court would decide these threshold issues before Shaulis filed his UPEPA motion to dismiss (which had not yet been filed as of the time of this opinion). Shaulis also answered Paucek's complaint with a counterclaim under the UPEPA. All of this led to the opinion in Paucek v. Shaulis, 2025 WL 1298457 (D.N.J., May 6, 2025), that you can and should read for yourself here, and which we will next review. The first question addressed by the court was whether the New Jersey UPEPA would be recognized in federal court. The issue here is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) already provide a means for the early dismissal of a case, which is by way of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. If a defendant attaches evidence to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then that motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. As I have often written, a special motion to dismiss or strike under the UPEPA is essentially an early summary judgment motion and akin to a "motion to dismiss on steroids". In fact, the UPEPA deliberately uses the summary judgment standard to test whether the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because that standard is well-understood by the courts and has already withstood constitutional challenges based on the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. So, the question becomes: if the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is already employed by the federal courts, then why substitute it with the UPEPA? The answer is twofold. First, in diversity of citizenship cases (as here), the federal courts will apply their own procedural rules but they are also required to apply the substantive rules of the state from where the action arises. This is known as the Erie doctrine, after a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court opinion of that name. But there is an important limitation, being that if the state substantive law "is in direct collision" with the federal procedure on some issue, then the federal procedure will govern that issue. Second, there are some differences between a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a UPEPA special motion, mostly being the UPEPA special motion triggers a stay of discovery and the UPEPA automatically awards attorney fees to a defendant who successfully asserts a UPEPA special motion. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does neither of these things. This is not the first time that a federal court has addressed whether the state law UPEPA should apply in the federal courts. In fact, throughout the nation, the state law UPEPA has been asserted in many federal court cases. The problem is that the federal courts have not all agree on the outcome, but rather there has been a split of opinion by the various federal circuits. The Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that Anti-SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court, while the 1st and 9th Circuits have held that they do. For its part, the Second Circuit has opinions going both ways, but with the latest opinions stating that Anti-SLAPP law do not apply in federal court. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court is eventually going to have to step in and resolve this split of decisions among the Circuits, but we're not there yet. The District of New Jersey, where this case was heard, sits in the 3rd Circuit which hasn't ruled yet on the issue. The court here declined to look at the issue as merely being one of whether an Anti-SLAPP law should apply in federal court or not. Rather, the court thought that the correct analysis was whether a particular Anti-SLAPP law (here, New Jersey's UPEPA) through its text and structure was in conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This would be the analysis to be followed by the court. To this end, it was obvious to the court that some provisions of the UPEPA do indeed conflict with the FRPC. One example is that of the UPEPA mandating that a defendant who successfully brings a UPEPA special motion will be awarded attorney's fees. By contrast, the FRPC instead requires that before such attorney fees can be awarded, a successful party would have to prevail on either summary judgment or at trial. This means the defendant must prove that the plaintiff has no case, which is different than the UPEPA which requires the plaintiff to establish that he can make at least a prima facie case to avoid dismissal. Other conflicts of the UPEPA with the FRPC include an immediate appeal of right to the defendant if the UPEPA special motion is unsuccessful, and also the automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a UPEPA special motion. So, there were conflicts between the UPEPA and the FRPC where their provisions collided. But that did not mean to the court that the entire UPEPA would be disallowed in federal court, but rather only that the conflicting provisions of the UPEPA would be surgically excised and in those places the federal rules would be substituted in their stead. This is known as "severability" and it is essentially the same process as where the illegal provisions of a contract are cut out but the surviving operating provisions will be enforced. This is the approach that has been followed by the Second and Ninth Circuits, which allows a court to enforce the state Anti-SLAPP procedures where they do not conflict with the federal rules, but replace those procedures with the corresponding federal rule where they do conflict. Now the court returned to the Erie doctrine which, it will be recalled, requires a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply state substantive law but federal procedural law. Thus, it would only be the procedural parts of a state's Anti-SLAPP laws, including the UPEPA, that would be replaced by the federal rules. The substantive parts of the state's Anti-SLAPP laws would survive and be utilized under the Erie doctrine. This brought the court to one of the questions before it: Was the UPEPA's mandatory award of fees to a defendant who successfully asserted a UPEPA special motion to be considered substantive or procedural in nature? Under the Erie doctrine, a fee-shifting provision is typically considered to be substantive in nature because it is tied to the outcome of the litigation (a procedural rule is not). But there are times when a fee-shifting provision would be procedural, such as when such fees are awarded because of a party's bad faith conduct ― but that is not tied to the outcome of the litigation. Because the UPEPA's mandatory fee award is tied to the outcome, since it can only be awarded if the defendant prevails on the UPEPA special motion, the court held that the UPEPA fee-shifting provision is substantive and not procedural. But the UPEPA in fact has two fee-shifting provisions. As mentioned, the first provision awards attorney fees to a defendant who wins on the UPEPA special motion. This is different than the second provision, by which a court has the discretion to award attorney fees to the plaintiff and against the defendant if the defendant filed the UPEPA special motion in bad faith or for purposes of delay. This latter provision is not tied to the outcome of the case, since the case continues if the defendant loses the UPEPA special motion, and thus is procedural in nature. The upshot to this is that if the defendant wins the UPEPA special motion, then the mandatory fee award in favor of the defendant is substantive and determined by state law. However, if the defendant loses the special motion then the issue of whether fees can be awarded against the defendant would be procedural in nature and determined if at all by the FRCP. The court also noted another factor in determining the UPEPA's mandatory fee award to be substantive: One of the purposes of that mandatory fee award is to deter the filing of abusive litigation. Disposing of a minor issue, the court also held that UPEPA relief is only obtainable through the filing of a UPEPA special motion and not by way of a counterclaim. The balance of the opinion deals with a conflict of law issue; namely, which state's Anti-SLAPP law would apply. The court ultimately concludes that the New Jersey UPEPA applies, and although the court's discussion of the issue is quite interesting, it is beyond the scope of this article. ANALYSIS Anti-SLAPP laws such as the UPEPA are indeed a mix of substantive and procedural law ― they are not purely one or the other. It therefore makes sense for the federal courts in applying the Erie doctrine to apply the substantive portions but reject the procedural ones. This may be the best that we get until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the split between circuits (and that could go either way) or Congress adopts a federal Anti-SLAPP law (which is regularly introduced, but never seems to go anywhere). But in the words of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want. You get what you need."

Yahoo

26 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Few Stocks Match Coca-Cola's Dividend Stability

The Coca-Cola Company (NYSE:KO) is among the best dividend stocks for a bear market. The company has paid a dividend since 1920 and has raised its annual payout for 63 consecutive years, a streak topped by only a few publicly traded companies. A row of factory workers assembling bottles of sparkling soft drinks on a conveyor belt. The Coca-Cola Company (NYSE:KO) operates in a space that offers rare stability, even when the economy takes a hit. Its strength lies in two key factors: consistent demand and the ability to raise prices without losing customers. As a provider of consumer staples, the company benefits from steady demand even during economic downturns. While it isn't immune to challenges, its core operations tend to hold up well when the broader market struggles. In addition, when sales volume dips, Coca-Cola can often raise prices without losing customers. This resilience is reflected in its valuation, both its price-to-sales and price-to-earnings ratios are above their five-year averages. Given its strong fundamentals and track record, The Coca-Cola Company (NYSE:KO) is well-positioned to continue increasing its dividend in the years ahead. The company's five-year average payout ratio is around 80%, and given its solid cash generation, investors expect growing dividends in the coming years as well. The Coca-Cola Company (NYSE:KO) offers a dividend yield of 2.88%, as of June 17. While we acknowledge the potential of KO as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and Disclosure. None.

Yahoo

27 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Over 200 Central Banks Reportedly Dump $48 Billion In US Treasuries Amid Concerns Over Dollar's Stability: 'The Drop Is Unusual'

Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. More than 200 Central banks and foreign entities have withdrawn a substantial amount of U.S. Treasuries from the New York Federal Reserve, signaling potential concerns over the stability of the U.S. dollar. What Happened: The New York Fed's custody holdings of U.S. Treasuries and other assets have seen a significant decline. The holdings dropped by $17 billion last week and have plummeted by $48 billion since late March, coinciding with the onset of the trade tensions sparked by President Donald Trump's tariffs, reported Fortune Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Bank of America's managing director and U.S. rates strategist, Meghan Swiber and fellow strategist, Katie Craig, expressed significant concern over the withdrawal of foreign private investors from the Treasury securities market. Swiber and Craig commented, 'This drop is unusual.' Typically, the cash generated from the sale of U.S. debt is placed in the New York Fed's reverse repurchase facility, where it is exchanged for Treasuries as collateral. However, that trend has recently reversed, with foreign participation in the facility declining by $15 billion since late March. This points to a notable reduction in U.S. assets held by foreigners at the Fed — roughly $63 billion in just over two months. Swider told Fortune, "We're of the view that deficits are going to continue to climb higher in the coming years, and what we struggle with is, 'Who is going to help support that higher level of supply?' As per Torsten Sløk, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, foreign buyers constitute about 30% of the U.S. Treasury market, and any decrease in their participation could compel the Treasury to offer higher yields to attract buyers, affecting interest rates across the economy, reported It Matters: The recent withdrawal of U.S. Treasuries by central banks and foreign entities adds to the growing concerns about the stability of the U.S. dollar and the potential impact on the global economy. This trend has been accompanied by a rise in Treasury yields, which could signal a weakening of foreign demand for U.S. debt, further exacerbating the situation. These developments are particularly noteworthy given the historical relationship between the U.S. dollar and Treasury yields. However, this pattern has seen a significant divergence since April 2025, potentially indicating a shift in global confidence in U.S. assets. As the U.S. dollar's status as the world's reserve currency and the confidence in the U.S. government's ability to meet its financial obligations are called into question, the U.S. may face increased borrowing costs, potentially impacting various sectors of the economy. On a year-to-date basis, iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NASDAQ:TLT) fell 1.05%, while iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF (NASDAQ:IEF) climbed 2.21%. Read Next: Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends would you invest in it? Image via ShutterstockThis article Over 200 Central Banks Reportedly Dump $48 Billion In US Treasuries Amid Concerns Over Dollar's Stability: 'The Drop Is Unusual' originally appeared on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data