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: quidditch who wrote (3150)	6/2/1999 12:22:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10280

steven, I don't even know if the FTC has anything to do with a deal for a foreign market - I would guess not in this case. I very much doubt that the deal excluded the US because of the FTC issue - much more likely it has to do with the PFE co-marketing agreement that UBC has in the US. Three-way deals are always more complicated. This deal does put some pressure on PFE to do a similar deal with SEPR for the US rights. Be very interesting to see if the UBC/SEPR deal gives SEPR the right to use the UBC clinical data in a US NDA application. Zyrtec has the reputation of being the most effective of the non-sedating antihistamines. It's drawback is that it's also the most sedating - in fact I don't think its label lets it be called non-sedating. If the SEPR ICE maintains effectiveness and loses the sedation, it could be a very big player if PFE markets it. Peter

To: quidditch who wrote (3150)	6/2/1999 12:52:00 PM
From: Don Miller	Respond to of 10280

I appreciate the inquiry, but Peter's opinion is what you really need. BIMHO, those European trials were going on for some time and probably well prior to LLY/FTC issue. It certainly puts some heat on the US and Japanese Licenses, to move it or lose it. Who really owns the trade name Zyrtec, UCB? If UCB owns the rights have they protected US and Japanese licensor rights to use the name beyond the patent life or some other period? Could UBC still sell the rights to Zless-Zyrtec in the US? Personally I think it is about time to think about sueing FTC for imparing/impeding SEPR/LLY business for no legally substantial reason.