Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sepracor-Looks very promising -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (3259)	6/8/1999 12:14:00 PM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 10280

Zyrtec and clinical data. Peter, I had forgotten that you had speculated on that point last week when the USB news was released. If true, it would furnish some important additional consideration for SEPR in its strategy to bring the ICE to market in the US. All to the good. Now to the question, how will PFE analyze the comparative advantage of bringing SEPR's version to market before the racemic version's patent protection expires in 2007. The alternative is SEPR, again, having to carry another heavy R&D/marketing burden by itself. Regards. Steven

To: Biomaven who wrote (3259)	6/8/1999 2:01:00 PM
From: RCMac	Respond to of 10280

Regarding the 5% EU "Zyrtec II" royalty, I recall that CEO Barberich has said (at the May '98 annual meeting? at an analysts meeting?) that SEPR expected an average royalty of 10% on the ICE's it out-licensed, with some more and some less. Although I agree that it sounds a reasonable strategy to accept half that in return for being able to use EU trial results, I'd be a little happier if SEPR would say that that's what they're doing, rather than leaving it to us to speculate. I don't think SEPR has even issued a press release about "Zyrtec II" yet. --RCM

To: Biomaven who wrote (3259)	6/8/1999 5:35:00 PM
From: rkrw	Respond to of 10280

I highly doubt Sepracor will be permitted to bridge UCB's European results for their own purposes. Why would UCB grant this, considering the US market is their most lucrative market? Its unreasonable to expect that. What is the alternative, have a patent fight with UCB on a drug a year or two from introduction that Sepracor has no interest in developing for Europe? I'm pleased with the 5%+ royalty (it scales up). Its yet another royalty stream that should begin in 2001. Further, Sepr retained US rights and with plans to take the drug into the clinic this year it would appear they are either trying to push UCB/PFE into licensing sooner rather than later and hence getting it to market well before the 2007 patent expire or are aiming for a more lucrative deal, or both. If this drug does well in Phase III trials (nonsedating), Sepracor's US rights will look very good and will be the source, in all likelihood of a more lucrative pact. Further, for all we know, UCB will have no rights to the US market, so Sepr will be able to deal exclusively with PFE.