The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Hi All - hope you’re keeping well
I’m sure they have done their homework on this as failure to launch again would be disastrous. Like that they have set up a local entity too. Fingers crossed for a positive outcome in Q2
GLA
Cont’d
15.1.6 ProNAi shall, at the request and option of CPF, return or destroy the Licensed Know How and the Licensed Materials in its
possession or control;
15.1.7 In the event that ProNAi had signed a sub-licence, such sub-licence shall terminate and Clause 3.5.1 shall apply. The principles in
Clauses 6.3 through6.6 and 7 shall apply to CPF as though it were substituting ProNAi in those Clauses where ProNAi was the
beneficiary of those Clauses under such terminated sublicense; and
15.1.8 save where this Agreement is terminated by ProNAi pursuant to Clause 14.2.1, in the event that CPF desires to proceed with the
development and/or exploitation of any Licensed Products:
15.1.9 ProNAi hereby grants to CPF under the Arising Intellectual Property a perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid, sub-licensable,
worldwide, non-exclusive licence to research, develop, make, have made, market, use and sell Licensed Products to the extent falling
within the scope of the Arising Intellectual Property.
GLA
SOG
I found my copy of the original Pronai license agreement from 2016. Section 15 deals with termination , 15.1.3 looks to deal with patents, whether based on the original Licensed Patents or supplemental confirmatory patents.
Across 2 posts due to word count
15.
EFFECTS OF TERMINATION
15.1 Upon the termination (but not expiration) of this Agreement for any reason:
15.1.1 payment of royalties and all other sums (including milestones, if applicable) due to CPF through the effective date of termination
shall become due to CPF upon the effective date of termination of this Agreement, and shall be payable no later than [*] following such
termination;
15.1.2 ProNAi shall, [*] of the effective date of termination of this Agreement provide CPF with a final written statement detailing, in
respect of the time elapsed since the last report under Clause 6.6, the matters set out in Clause 6.6;
15.1.3 ProNAi shall consent to the revocation of any confirmatory Patent licence relating to the Licensed Patents granted pursuant to
Clause 8.10 and the cancellation of the Registration of any such licence in any register;
15.1.4 ProNAi shall promptly transfer to CPF (or any person nominated by CPF) any and all documents and information in ProNAi’s
control or possession relating to the Licensed Patents and CPF may assume responsibility for the prosecution and maintenance of the
same;
15.1.5 the licences granted to ProNAi pursuant to Clause 3 shall terminate forthwith, and ProNAi shall have no further rights in or to the
Licensed Intellectual Property pursuant to this Agreement. Unless ProNAi is granted a direct sublicence by CRT following such
termination, ProNAi (and its Affiliates and Sub-Licensees) may, upon request and with CPF’s prior written consent (which may be
withheld at CPF’s discretion), for a period [*] following such termination, continue to sell off any inventory of finished Licensed
Products existing as of the effective date of such termination, provided that ProNAi shall continue to account to CPF for any royalty
owed on Net Sales of such Licensed Products. Upon the expiration of such [*], or promptly following the effective date of such
termination (if CPF does not give its consent to such inventory sell off), ProNAi shall, at CPF’s election, transfer to CPF or destroy, and
shall cause its Affiliates and Sub-Licensees (to the extent such Sub-Licensees do not retain their sublicenses following such termination),
to transfer to CPF or to destroy, at CPF’s reasonable expense, all inventory of Licensed Products in ProNAi’s possession, provided that if
CPF requests a transfer of such inventory, CPF shall also reimburse ProNAi for ProNAi’s reasonable cost of manufacture (or purchase from
a Third Party) of such inventory of Licensed Products, in addition to the costs of such transfer.
Thanks SOG - the following few weeks of seeing the details in the return should be quite telling.
The patent issued for SRA737 in July 2022 is what to watch. Obviously, I agree they are likely to be in breach on the licensing agreement but under that patent claim they have invented a therapeutic application using SRA737, but if they no longer have commercial rights through the breach then this could be very interesting.
Cheers
Well I know why I moved to the other BB, the back and forth in fighting on here is tiresome! The BB was once filled with holders who could debate rationally to try and form opinions.
I raised several pertinent questions yesterday surrounding the patents that Sierra lodged. I would really appreciate some views from others on what this means. I can’t understand why Sierra would have protected the IP from their early trials and then hand the compound back. Doesn’t seem to make sense. Reposted below if anyone cares to debate
“Some funny things went off yesterday. One question raised on the other BB was regarding the patents that Sierra lodged for SRA737.
Why would Sierra have gone to the trouble and expense of lodging patents if it was worthless……?
Just thinking back if the patents were granted or just lodged? Can anyone recall?
Again, you only lodge patent protection if the invention works otherwise why protect the IP?
Something not stacking here!
I believe they lodged on the therapeutic application (combo)?
Surely, Sierra would only have done this, at the time they did it, if they knew it was worth protecting from competitors?
As we all know……the intrinsic value of anything is in the patent protection and their durations!
More to this story than meets the eye. Appreciate thoughts from all?
GLA “
Hi all
Some funny things went off yesterday. One question raised on the other BB was regarding the patents that Sierra lodged for SRA737.
Why would Sierra have gone to the trouble and expense of lodging patents if it was worthless……?
Just thinking back if the patents were actually granted or just lodged? Can anyone recall?
Again, you only lodge patent protection if the invention works otherwise why protect the IP?
Something not stacking here!
I believe they lodged on the therapeutic application (combo)? Surely, Sierra would only have done this, at the time they did it, if they knew it was worth protecting from competitors? This if I recall was before the GSK buyout?
As we all know……the intrinsic value of anything is in the patent protection and their durations!
More to this story than meets the eye. Appreciate thoughts from all?
GLA
I recall there was a guy (Paul Workman or something like that) who worked for CPF and CRUK that raved about our CHK1 a few years ago, same time as Dr. Tripiana who also was extremely up beat about it……with a positive spin it may be a blessing in disguise. We have wanted it returned for years due to lack of progress by Sierra!
GLA
Hi All
Was reading some of the LSE posts re GSK and our CHK1. It was mentioned that Sierra applied for some patents just before the GSK acquisition. Wonder what if any these patents (if granted) have on our original patents for our CHK1???
GLA
Ahfam
Talking of coming off patent, AbbVie the worlds maker of the best selling drug Humira that treats……psoriasis (mmmm) lost its European patent in 2018 and more importantly will lose its US patent next year……. Someone will certainly be looking for a potential pipeline replacement of an equally blockbuster status……otherwise share of psoriasis market will plummet not to mention Abbvie’s share price. They make in excess of a $1bn per month in sales………
GLA
Salam alaikum Afham
Great post and you are on the right track. I posted the below on the ‘other’ BB (much more peaceful wink wink)
“Everything also hangs on whether SAR has developed a strategy to license for individual indications (eg psoriasis) and an individual license for each and every indication anyone wants to license it for. In the patent, over 30 autoimmune conditions/diseases/treatments could be applicable for SDC-1801. We may end up with, say 20+ licenses worth anywhere from a few hundred million each to over 1 billion each (plus royalties) depending on the existing global market sales.
Then there could be an outright buy of the compound and all its potential treatment avenues……could be worth billions on its own.
Then we have the same strategy applied to cancer with SDC-1802……again could be billions.
Finally, GSK could take SRA737 over fully (buy us out of the license), again could be billions????
Remember the $74bn deal BMS made for Celegene back in 2019, Mr. Caforio BMS chairman and CEO said “With our leading franchises in oncology, haematology, immunology and cardiovascular disease, and one of the most diverse and promising pipelines in the industry, I know we will deliver on our vision of transforming patients’ lives through science. I am excited about the opportunities for our current employees and the new colleagues that we welcome to the Company as we work together to deliver innovative medicines to patients.”
Inshallah Habibi….. Free to dream GLA
Hi Potnak
Spot on with RMM suggesting the price tag is on in the shop window.
But don’t forget, we have multiple year patents left to run and a potential psoriasis market worth $15/18bn per annum……wouldn’t be a cheap deal!!
And furthermore, this is the 1st indication of around 30+ for SDC-1801 and over 55 types of cancer for SDC-1802…..
If we prove efficacy in psoriasis then the many other autoimmune diseases/conditions/treatments would be ‘bolt on’ deals……then we have cancers!!!!
Hi Bobbler - for sure!
There are plenty of large pharma with cash to spend. Now apply that to the world’s best selling drug Humira (with annual sales of $18bn), then the wolves will be circling.
Also Humira’s patents expired in Europe in 2018 and expire in the US next year….I could see Abbvie buying us out to maintain market share
Hi all
Humira, an arthritis medication with indications for colitis and psoriasis is the world’s best-selling drug, but while its efficacy and benefit to millions cannot be understated it has not been all plain sailing for AbbVie, the drug’s manufacturer. The company has been held accountable by the FDA for improperly handling death complaints and has also been criticised for hiking up prices.
Sales of AbbVie’s blockbuster drug Humira peaked at $18.9bn last year and, according to analysts at Evaluate Pharma, the product is expected to generate $15.2bn through to 2024. These figures are indicative of the drug’s continued dominance in the global marketplace, but Humira’s success story has not been without its challenges.
Humira (D2E7, adalimumab) was originally developed through a joint venture between Cambridge Antibody Technology and BASF in the UK.
Let’s hope that Tim is suggesting our SDC-1801 can be better than Humira
Hi All - not posted for a while but still follow the BB.
You may recall we had some great results with SRA737 back in 2018/2019 (I think) when the AACR posters were published. Theses are on the SAR website and the conclusions section cites the results as STRIKING, SIGNIFICANT and COMPELLING!
We know our CHK1 works in combo very well and I’m certain GSK would have picked this up in DD.
Time will tell as always
GLA
This is an interesting article that references GSK and biomarkers. I recall this because GSK did a tie up with 23andMe to look for these very biomarkers in peoples DNA samples. They would be used to identify cohorts who would respond to treatment or identify cohorts at risk. Out of 18 trialled all had their rectal tumors disappear. Not saying there is a link to what we have, but this kind of relationship with biomarkers and ‘targeted’ drugs (the on/off switch) will be the next big step change in treating autoimmune disorders and cancer indications. GSK just need a suite of drugs matched to conditions and biomarkers.....mmmm now there’s a thing. Also, wasn’t our SDC-1802 being pinged for co-rectal cancers??
https://endpts.com/asco22-rare-biomarker-leads-to-unprecedented-results-in-small-rectal-cancer-study/
Hi Maidit
Agree, if they are to maintain progress, we need to be submitting soon.
No signals of delay from the latest presentation (22 April). Our last CTA for our CHK1 (now known as SRA737) was submitted 01 Feb 2016 and approval came through on the 05 April 2016 (10 weeks).
GLA