With all due respect, but if TRCA would put INSM out of business, TRCA would take over the whole market that could be covered by Increlex (not necessary limited to short stature. So it has a lot to gain. If it would settle for a small royalty percentage, it would indeed put itselve (very slowly) out of business, since in the end the product with the most competitive edges will prevail.
In my opinion, TRCA will try and do anything to put INSM out of business and or negotiate a substantial higher percentage than the mere 10% if it gets the chance to do so. I wonder whether bad publicity is such an issue if it would only be Increlex on the market and no serious alternative. Patients need to be treated, right?
I do not believe getting 10% royalty in a settlement is a win-win situation for TRCA (at this point).
After reading the ruling I got the strong impression that INSM tried to do anything in its power to narrow the scope of the patents at issue (especially with regard to the 414) and that to a significant extend didn't succeed in doing so.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel for INSM, because it also scored some points on the matter of bio-activeness (basically, in my opinion, TRCA/DNA will now need to prove that it was capable of producing a bioactive protein at the moment the 414 was issued, which is something different than a polypeptide with just the right aminoacid sequence) and definition of human IGF-1 (the definition now specifically excludes fusion proteins. I am not sure about the consequences yet)
I am long on INSM and have taken a few hits recently, so I am not particulary happy with the outcome. I will wait for the INSM Q2 results and CC before even considering extending my position.
(and reread the ruling a couple of times more :-)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
