George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Must be due an update soon on 004 unless the wording used by AR in the RNS of 8/2 was not correct where he said they continue to make significant progress in both 004 and 002, as the last update for 004 was the patent submission notified 12/11.
Would have thought they would RNS 004 drug rather than it be found out by default, opportunity to put spin on the good results last year. All indications I see, on the website, in interviews (early licensing policy, working with licensees) , what is not said in RNS ie no business dev, suggest to me originator has been contacted. Looking forward to news.
From the RNS 14/12 referring to the use of Lanstead monies both 002 and 004
“ o Business development activities with potential licensees for both assets; and”
What was a clear message yesterday in the RNS is that no BD activity is required for 004. The website is clear also regarding next steps for 004 regarding liscense discussions with the originator and the RNS 8/2 said there was continuing significant progress.
Well in a fashion we have had an 002 update BD guy in place will chase licensing and expect the durability update soon. We still await the 004 update regarding significant progress from 8/2 RNS. For some reason 004 does not require BD.
Soup yes that seems about right there is also track 1 which is about 6 months but I don’t know what the qualifications are for that route other than higher fees. I think I recall the original drug had a short period left under license (1 year?). What are the chances the originator will want to progress 004 in tandem with the patent approval? If interested it should be a low risk option in terms of cost if no or limited financial impact until patent approval.
From the website there is the potentially increase their patent protection
“ If the patent applications on these new forms are granted, there is potential for patent expiry to extend to 2040/2041
We will seek to license NXP004 to the originator of the marketed drug to potentially extend their patent protection, potentially adding significant value for the originator.”
Soup thanks I thought the normal process was the application is given a reference, only the applicant can then track progress. Once the patent is approved then anyone can object to the award but there is a 28 day window to do so. Once the patent has been submitted and the number issued obviously sequential copy applications would fail where I thought the risk existed.
I should imagine if the originator has been approached they may be keen to get another 20 year run under license so support the patent application.
Had a curious thought but maybe just missing the point, why keep 004 under wraps now the 2nd patent has been submitted. Thought the purpose was to license 004, I know the plan is to offer it to the originator but does it need to be secret squirrel, surely you sell something by letting the market know it’s available. 1st refusal is ok as long as it is market rate but it does delay the rest of the market pitch.
Soup thanks bit like watching paint dry. This from the RNS of 12th Nov gives me hope the originator of 004 will be interested where the results show performance improvement over the original. That would make 004 the preferred buy in that space.
“ We are pleased to have filed this new patent application for NXP004. Data that we have generated on these new co-crystal forms in the past six months has shown improvements over the marketed form that justifies filing this new application. ”
Soup agreed warrant allocation timing odd. It is unusual for NEDS to benefit in such a way as they do not fulfill an executive position which is why I think they have been doing more than usual especially as they have all been awarded the same allocation as the chair who has taken on the executive role. It suggests the other 2 NEDS are actively involved. It also suggests the issue had to be done quickly ie before a result otherwise the benefit is lost.
March date is interesting for 004 reveal, as it also means the market competition of the originator will be aware of an available IP in that space. My view is you don’t need a BDD to approach a known party, it would be disappointing if the bod had not followed up the plan shown on the website. So do heads of agreement need to be wrapped up by reveal date?