I see no problem with licensing wrt individual indications treated with individual therapies,contrary to SK. Perhaps SK's view reflects what licensee BP wants---total market or monopoly power, e.g. in oncology, or in radiation, or in immuno-therapy, with its use of Bavi in combination with whatever it has FDA-approved now,or whatever is in clinical trials, or whatever it might in the future discover. That is anti-competitive, and could well forestall(with PPHM's participation and agreement) markedly superior combo therapies, all to the detriment of the patients and public. Would the licensee with that market power necessarily sub-license if it had that power granted to it in original broad license?
Cross-licensing would be encouraged, not discouraged, under the regimen I propose. Should be a win/win for all sides, not just one party.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
