| | | You are doing a good job compiling information, I can tell there's going to be a lot to digest in the process.
I think that a lot of the time those SO close to everything complicate things in negotiations. With the lock on the TROP-2 target, it really shouldn't be that tough. It targets many solid tumor cancers, but that shouldn't complicate a deal. The minimal side effects of our antibody that binds to TROP-1 means it's a good candidate for combinations. The data set so far in something like 350 patients shows that the TROP-2 target isn't a problem in or with normal tissue and that's a big deal. So it's almost a great target.
So, negotiations should be simple. First, $300 million upfront goes on the table. Then, a 20% royalty set for all sales (Gross) of 132 or ANY compound the partner comes up with that targets TROP-2. At $1 billion in sales the royalty goes to 25%, this in leu of complicating the deal with milestones for multiple indications or other things. Keep it simple and everything in the contract should encourage the partner to expand the compound to as many indications as they want and also in as many ways as they think might improve efficacy.
We'd make a ton of money, and so would they.
Again, I think making a deal complicated is somehow seen as protecting and maximizing value and income for the company. Too many times it has just the opposite affect. It should be approached in a way that says "This deal will be good for you as well as us". Not, we got everything we wanted and will have lawyers watching to make sure do".
I'd highlight the possibility of AA, but at least phase lll ready for 132. But I'd also sell the target as a way to stay No. 1 or overtake No. 1 and for years to come. I think the current patent is good until 2033 or something like that. "Just look at what YOUR R&D budget and team could do with this". And it's true. |
|
