I spoke to Terry today and asked him if Biocurex could speak about a feasibility milestone payment or if we had to wait to see it in the quarterly financial statement and he didn't know. He did say that Abbott had pretty tough restrictions on what they were able to say as per the licensing agreement. I asked whether Abbott had rights only to the recaf technology as it pertained to prostate, or if they were free to apply it to cancers across the board with the terms of the agreement remaining the same, and he didn't know for sure but forwarded that ? to Dr. Moro. He said he hadn't corresponded with him since he has been back from Prague.
He mentioned the pursuit of more "distribution" agreements, as opposed to saying licensing agreements. I found that interesting. I'm wondering if the use of the word "distribution" refers to the fact that Abbott/Biocurex already successfully changed the format to a chemiluscient format, signifying, and/or implying the technology is ready to be commercialized and "distributed" in its current form with no additional developments needed to make it compatible with most currently used analyzers, once the FDA gives the green light. He also stated that it is not a given that Abbott will make any announcement public when it submits to the FDA. For all we know they have already done it or are in the process.
AI
