Dew,
Neither of us know about LFB having multiple CD 20 antibodies, but you guess at what they are doing then dismiss my guess. Fine, guess away but try and provide a rationale. I don't see how your guess makes sense or as much as mine. I don't understand why you think the MAbs have to come from different sources of preparation instead of using a combined approach.
<My guess is that the CD20 drug manufactured by MAbgene is intended to be a Rituxan biosimilar that can be approved in the EU fairly quickly using an abbreviated clinical program that relies in part on the Rituxan dossier.
The LFB-GTC CD20 compound, on the other hand, targets a different epitope than Rituxan and hence is suited to being a “biobetter” rather than a biosimilar. The LFB-GTC compound will probably require a full-fledged clinical program that does not rely on the Rituxan dossier.>
The time frame for being ready is specified by when Rituxan comes off patent. Now, the biosimilar is far more likely to ease through trials than the biobetter, since it is a new entity requiring more clinical data. We both agree.
Now, say LFB has several biobetters along with their biosimilar. You can make DNA constructs for each monoclonal and then place them in both CHO cells and goats cells at the same time. The purpose of doing both is that you get materials from cell culture faster than goats but move the goats forward at little cost. This means you can do some pre-clinical and clincal work using the small amount of cell culture derived MAbs while the goats are growing up. Whichever biobetter works, then make large amounts in goats for bigger trials. You would likely have to repeat phase I, but the time frame and cost wouldn't be that excessive.
It makes even more sense to me to to use the biosimilars from both since unless something really unexpected happens, you be ready with large volume, low cost production using goats after proof of principle using cell culture deived materials.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
