Just to set things straight.
Reverse wrote to Erthang: "You have made the specific statement that BOCX has received other offers, please tell all who they were from and where we can find that information so that we may review it"
That is actually old news if you had done your dd. Notice that they say they have declined "offers" with a "s" in the end of the word.
In an April 2006 update BOCX wrote:
"The Company has discussed terms with other potential licensees. These discussions were based on our ``proof of concept' blood test and it became apparent that we would have a better negotiating position with large biopharma companies if a new test format was developed. Given the semi-exclusive nature of our licensing agreement with Abbott -- which effectively limits the number of licensees -- we have declined offers which could have negatively affected our overall royalty streams."
Further more they have indirectly indicated that the license agreement with Abbott is double digit. Notice how they call a 10% revenue agreement "modest"
October 2005 update
"All of the above suggests a potential RECAF market size in excess of $1B/year. Even assuming a modest albeit typical 10% royalty, this would represent $100M/year in licensing fees without commercialization or manufacturing costs. Considering a 15% profit over gross sales, $100M in royalties would be the equivalent to gross sales of $650M/year, without the liabilities and investment involved in manufacturing and selling a product."
They have also indicated that they are talking to other large cap pharmas. :
"We are also at different stages of the process with a number of other companies, some of them equally large, some smaller. Given the semi-exclusive nature of the original licensing agreement, we must be careful in our selection and think long term."
