We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hi Ivy
If you watch the end of Lindy's presentation, you will hear her saying that 2 companies were interested at that time. This was back in 2015. So I would think it likely that 2 of the 3 collaborators are these 2 companies. So here's a case in point where it appears likely that 2 companies were just waiting for the research to conclude. But as with a lot of novel research, there was a problem encountered. Loss of avidity and hence killing action.
Lindy has solved this problem by adding elements of the murine mAB to the humanised mAB. In doing so, she not only solved the problem but, in effect, has created a new concept that can be applied to any mAB.
A third company has also showed interest. So, let's hope that with 3 companies competing that this results in a sense of urgency in these 3 companies' evaluations.
ATB
I know Ray just trying to lighten the mood by using bit of levity.
Most supermarkets buy through a Dairy Company which gets supplied by lots of individual farmers.
Of course when actual collaborations are signed I presume lot of DD has been done and hence it is fair enough to involve financial arrangements in any agreement.
The original point involved tyre kickers which I would have thought have been long gone after the initial interest.
Anyone who entertains time wasters who you can usually spot a mile off deserve their fate. Haha
Hi Ivy
"The idea of charging for someone to look at the books is a bit like a farmer asking Tesco to pay a fee to come and see it’s herd and decide whether to buy the milk."
I disagree with that statement. There is no comparison.
I could well be that the first 2 Avidimab collaborations knew about the glycans mABs for some time and were keen to collaborate. They were just waiting for Scancell to complete the research.
I cannot imagine Tesco chasing any individual farmer for milk supplies.
https://vimeo.com/155954442
Hi Dalester,
Normally the process would be some initial contact formally or otherwise and SCLP would arrange a Meeting to discuss the level of interest. Being such a small team I would expect CH and possibly LD or SA to be there and how you would proceed would depend on who made the approach and how it was made.
I would imagine they would already know or know of the people who approached them and a degree of knowledge about the level of interest.
Most major pharma have specific depts to handle this stuff and smaller outfits would normally be the CEO.
When I was involved in licensing products and technologies in and out at Merck I would normally have the initial discussion and evaluate whether it was worth pursuing,draw up a Heads of Agreement and then escalate to lawyers etc to draw up an NDA in due course.
Of course these approaches can come from a variety of sources so from scientist to scientist at a Conf or from an 121 at an investor event etc.
My point is they will know who is making these approaches and how serious the level of interest is likely to be.The idea of them allowing a time waster in is very low and the most SCLP would lose is an afternoon say in a lab visit and you would screen any rainbow chasers out at that stage.
You should not get around to signing an NDA and any significant science detail not in public domain until an advanced stage part of DD.
The IP is protected or should be and both parties should be engaged in the process and if not you have to question the ability of likes of CH in sussing them out.
The idea of charging for someone to look at the books is a bit like a farmer asking Tesco to pay a fee to come and see it’s herd and decide whether to buy the milk.
I know that car boots and jumble sales may charge an admission fee to view the assets but in the real commercial world this doesnot happen imv
Hi Ivy, I would assume that anyone who wanted to know what Scancell are doing would sign and NDA before being shown any of the intimate details of the technology. If they then wanted to take IP off the premises then yes I would ask them for a time-limited, non-returnable deposit set against any future agreement. I would also insist that any legal recourse in the NDA was predicated on using UK Courts. Not that Scancell can easily afford to persue any breach in the courts.
Dalester
Not a bad idea IMO.
If you genuinely believe you have something special as Scancell do then make folk curious.
You can't enter a collaboration until you pay us. Physcology at work.
Morning Dalester,
Serious question just so I can check my understanding.
Are you suggesting that SCLP ‘ charge a fee” to look in a data room or examine the potential of the science possibly leading to a NDA.
Thanks for any response
Dalester, any chance you can join the Scancell board? :) Your logical thinking seems to be totally absent!
I think a financial commitment is what sorts out the buyers from the tyre kickers. Few people in business will turn down the chance to check out a possible competitors IP if there is no financial cost. I think I would have been charging some sort of fee to play with Avidimab, especially as the university will be getting part of the deal if it ever closes. Even the odd £50 -100k entry ticket would be enough to make people get on with checking it out. As for BioNtech, they can keep playing till the cows come home if there isn't a definite cut off date with money involved at least beyond that date.
I would never release IP without some sort of payment against future sales but I guess with a product that may or may not work as they might want it to, it depends on your relationship with those doing the looking. At least the patents are in place.
"". I sometimes think a lot of professional people find talking about money a bit distasteful.""
Well that is what differentiates a salesman from a closer.
Tell me Dalestar, from your experience have you found too many collaborations are signed without any financial commitment??
I must admit when I started in licencing it was a new company and a new industry for me. It requires some organisation and some legal help but the actual deals are the same old same old for most salespeople: a lot of slogging around tradeshows and getting to meet the right people ie the decision makers. Lots of techies talk to other techies and get excited about new stuff, but they are not the ones who have to put cash on the line, similarly, I have no doubt CH knows lots of Researchers and Doctors but how many CEO's?
We need a deal-maker, someone who has an idea in his head about who he wants to meet, what he wants to sell and how much he wants for it. Moreover, that someone has to be prepared to get out of the office and do the leg work, once a few deals are over the line , you can start to sit back (a bit) as the calls will start to come to you.
A brief anecdote, I wanted to speak to the MD of a particular company but could never get an appointment so I had a sample delivered and marked" to be signed for" motorbiked right onto his desk. He called to tell me I was a cheeky bugger, had a laugh, and we were in business a week later! People buy people first!
Apparently our science is world class, you would think some of the big players would be watching us (and watching each other watching us) like hawks, maybe they are. But it's time to convert some of the the potential into Pounds. I sometimes think a lot of professional people find talking about money a bit distasteful.
Chelsea,
Probably not.
It’s good to talk!
Ruck,
Genuine question, but we employed a top firm of solicitors whose expertise was negotiating deals between pharmaceutical companies. This often comes up, our inability to negotiate deals, but do you think that CH is just left, or anyone else, to negotiate on his own??
C7,
Dalester described a number of complex permutations in terms of licensing. This will require careful negotiation to ensure it is a profitable deal for Scancell. So a valid question I thought.
ATB
Ruck, you seem to be confirming my feelings that your negativity has no respite...................
RuckRover
Posts: 3,054
Price: 5.35
No Opinion
"""RE: Thinking aloudToday 15:41
Dalester,
Good post. Do you think CH is the man to make all this happen?"""
Certainly agree about Dalestars post, it was something that we haven"t tended to discuss over the years, and I do feel we are about to see something from that list occur soon.
But your actual question about CH?? Well I admire your closing skills in asking a question at this time of that nature and with sentiment being low anyway I doubt it would have a happy ending. Without getting involved in an endless debate, where many feelings are running high on our latest fall and absence of deals, I would only say we just don"t know what might being discussed at this very moment and being such a price sensitive subject we can hardly expect an update on any impending deal. I do feel though that from my first opinions he was presenting with more confidence each time we heard him, but a true judgement of him can only be made when we see monetisation of assets/IP. It seemed to be generally accepted that any deals from impending trials would come after new data had been collated, but in his role as CEO, we as a company have entered into a few collaborations that could easily bear fruit, and even then someone could argue that that was not necessarily down to him. So for me it is a very speculative question at a time when many feel disgruntled, but expecting more negative comments than positive what would that teach us anyway?? On top of that there are a few of you going to extraordinary levels to attack whaever Inanaco says and I reckon any debate will end up with 3 or 4 of you arguing against anything Inanaco says.
So that I"m afraid is IMHO, and you will know from that question and a feeling it is all too negative what I am talking about.
Anyway, till tomorrow and ATB
GN
Difficult to say, when I have heard him speak I feel that he is able to deliver straight talking, not too technical language with confidence in the science behind it. However, I don't think overall the actual sales/licencing side of the business is as strong as it could be. At a sp of just over 5p, this IMHO should be far higher based on the science. However, biotechs are notorious for having a high cash burn and low chance of getting a product right through to market. Hence, I think if there were ways to generate an income that is relatively stable, even if it is small transactions that would be better. Take when we sold antibodies to generate cash, that was beneficial and I wonder whether more of this could happen. Obviously, science takes money and money helps create science - at times it feels like a catch-22. However, to break out of that cycle, you need a strong focus on the sales/licencing side of things.
Burble,
Sorry, good original post.
Dalester,
Good post. Do you think CH is the man to make all this happen?
Many more excellent points Dalester.
I mentioned the discussions from 2012 on animal applications over the weekend. If we are in the licencing business, slicing and dicing the IP becomes the main activity. I used to work licencing software , the options were almost endless , upfront payments, royalty payments in lieu of up front payments, combinations of royalties and payments, products in English, products localised for different languages, regional licences, national licences, exclusive licences, non exclusive licences maximum licence periods... and on and on
If the Scancell platforms can improve on current solutions the opportunities are also almost endless., cancer licences, virus licences, animal, human, regional, national, upfront payments, ongoing royalties, . Continual product improvements , 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation re-licences. mindblowing really.
LL/Burble,
Well said LL , and I think one factor people can miss is we are not alone in this project. We have two active partners, and both financially really want this to happen, we benefit too from their contacts and resources and funding is something all Hospitals and Universities need for R & D, so this is hardly unique in that respect.
I think a lot of us had too high expectations with regard to timelines and see other vaccines specifically for COVID 19 as competition where LL and Burble have made some very good points.
I think Scancell's vaccine would be highly prized as their page and official communications indicate that it would not only help with this covid virus, but also future ones. For me, this means that even if Scancell's is late to market, the efficacy for the elderly and immuno compromised will pay off.
This is partly why I'm astounded that share value has been pushed back down to under 6 - I've stopped fighting that though, I'm just trying to make some money so I can invest more.
Absolutely Burble and it will say a lot about SCIB1?Immunobody too.
Thinking aloud here, if SCLP were able to show that their COVIDITY vaccine worked well for Covid-19, could this open the door to the technology being used more broadly in the virology marketplace - so thinking along the lines of HCV, Flu, HPV etc. In turn, rather than selling everything as a single hit, the licensing model for the immunobody platform would be far more attractive for other companies. Data from 2003 (albeit it's nearly 20 years old), suggests that the respiratory non-flu virus market alone is $40 billion annually (direct costs, $17 billion per year; and indirect costs, $22.5 billion per year), meaning as a market the viral sector is probably equally as attractive as the oncology sector.