VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Merritt who wrote (6332)	1/18/1999 1:06:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) of 9719

Merrit, It's a big mistake to look at the upfront money they got from SGP - the key issue is the royalty rate down the road. SEPR has the financial strength to trade reduced upfront money for higher royalties where it matters. The SEPR patent for Claritin II goes through 2014, by the way, with SGP's own patent expiring in 2004. By licensing to the original franchise holders, SEPR has sidestepped any patent challenges from them. SEPR can't ever proceed on its own until the underlying composition of matter patent expires anyway, so even if they ever do go it alone, the original patent will have expired, reducing the threat of a suit. Someone like Barr could still sue of course, but I think this is very unlikely. I personally don't think concern about their patents have driven their licensing strategy much, if at all. For drugs that are still under composition-of-matter patent the incentives are all to do the deal with the original patent holder anyway, so as to leverage the existing franchise and advance the time when the new version can be on the market. Peter

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next