InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 283
Posts 1162
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/04/2020

Re: OTCShotCaller post# 58297

Sunday, 12/20/2020 1:05:27 AM

Sunday, December 20, 2020 1:05:27 AM

Post# of 198610
Essentially what BTG was is commonly referred to as an Intellectual Property Broker or "Patent Broker.". BTG was NOT a BigPharma!

What I perceive about BTG's former relationship was with BioClonetics is they were granted what is known as a "Commercializing License" likely on a commission basis to broker BioClonetics technology to the BigPharma industry.

Here's the generic definition of a Patent Broker: A patent broker is an intermediary organization that analyses company assets, prepares a portfolio for a company's marketing and sale of their product(s) and/or technology to prospective buyers, contacts prospective buyers, and ultimately assist their prospective buyer clients until a transaction has closed.

A company like BTG would market the technology of a company like BioClonetics to a 3rd party client of theirs, in hopes that the 3rd party client purchases licensing rights of that technology. Does it make sense now?

Obviously licensing rights to Bioclonetics Clone-3 has not yet been acquired by any Bigpharma as of yet. Therefore, very obviously BTG did not get very far in their broker/marketing efforts for a variety of reasons, or they had a limited amount of time to do this and did not meet the contract deadline with Bioclonetics. BTG would of earned a commission IF their efforts were successful which apparently they weren't.

The far superior way of doing this is Bioclonetics simply entering into a formal partnership with a BigPharma who would not only serve as a marketing entity but also the global commercialization of the Clone-3 drug.

Here's a link that describes the pitfalls of a Patent Broker like BTG and it gives an excellent perspective of what may of happened between them and BioClonetics.

https://www.ipeg.com/patent-brokers-and-their-headaches/

Be well and prosper...