Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Most Likely FoB Partners for MNTA

[Revised for new Enbrel patent, which eliminates a contrary argument for PFE.]


From MNTA’s perspective, the main criterion for an FoB partner is (IMO) the partner’s ability to manufacture and commercialize a biologic without engaging a third party. There’s a non-trivial risk of IP theft in any kind of FoB partnership, so it’s best to limit MNTA’s IP exposure to only the partner rather than the partner and a third party.

Companies that meet the above criterion and have publicly expressed an interest in FoB’s include the following, listed in order of highest to lowest likelihood (IMO) for partnering with MNTA:


• PFE. Pro: An aggressive stance with respect to business development. Con: None. In the previous version of this analysis, I cited PFE’s partial ownership of Enbrel (which is shared with AMGN) as an argument against PFE , which was based on the notion that Enbrel was one of the most promising biologics for developing an FoB. However, AMGN’s newly issued Enbrel patent (#msg-69265200) would seem to take Enbrel out of the equation for any of MNTA’s prospective FoB partners, so there is no longer a company-specific downside for PFE.

• SNY. Pro: An aggressive stance with respect to business development and respect for MNTA’s technology arising from an understanding of how difficult it was for MNTA to reverse-engineer branded Lovenox. Con: SNY has some branded biologics (including those from Genzyme) that could cause management to worry about cannibalization from FoB’s.

• MRK. Pro: No branded biologics, and hence no sales placed at risk from a broad FoB partnership. Con: Strategic alignment—MRK appears to be pretty far along in its plan to seek US approval of FoB’s using the conventional BLA pathway.

• NVS. Pro: Respect for MNTA’s technology and scant involvement with branded biologics that could be put at-risk from FoB’s. Con: Strategic alignment—NVS has publicly stated its intention to pursue non-substitutable FoB’s, where there is less need for MNTA’s reverse-engineering technology than there is with substitutable FoB’s.

JMHO, FWIW