Not correct . They are using Cargills yeast platform. Hence the payment of royalties. And as clearly spelled out that exclusive license would be non-exclusive if the royalties weren't paid . But it makes no difference as lcy bought the patents to any tweaking the dead company did with the yeast .
In 2010 we signed a license with Cargill granting us exclusive rights to their yeast platform for the production of bio-succinic acid that could offer lower capital costs and lower operating costs. Cargill had developed a proprietary yeast host that is very robust and capable of thriving in harsh fermentation conditions, including high tolerance to organic acids such as succinic acid, high tolerance to low pH, physical robustness to heat, agitation and processing, high glycolytic rates and the ability to grow in a simple medium with inexpensive nutrients. Cargill has a patent portfolio to protect its yeast platform.
In April 2010, we entered into a commercial license agreement with Cargill pursuant to which Cargill granted us an exclusive, worldwide, royalty bearing license. We agreed to pay Cargill a royalty based on net sales of our products, but in no event less than a minimum annual royalty payment if we wish to maintain our exclusive license. If royalties based on net sales are below the minimum annual royalty payment, we can elect to pay the difference. If we elect not to pay the difference in any one year, Cargill may transform the exclusive license granted to us under the agreement to a non-exclusive, worldwide license.
