A strategic issue that I have not seen discussed yet: preservation of the SNY component of the patent. IMCL has stated that one recourse is to appeal the inventorship decision. Should Schlessinger and SNY/Aventis be deemed down the road to be rightful co-inventors, then I presume IMCL could continue to practice exclusively under the patent through their Aventis license. This would force anyone wishing to market a competing EGFR antibody in combination with chemotherapy to fight to have the patent invalidated. Perhaps the patent is indeed a weak one, but it is strong enough to have brought Merck KgA and Amgen to the bargaining table.
This would be a risky legal strategy for IMCL to undertake, in comparison with paying 1-2% for a nonexclusive license. If, as the company has stated, they truly believe Panitumumab is a weak competing product, then they should certainly choose the less risky legal option, negotiate a license from Yeda, and work to ensure that Erby crushes Pani in the marketplace.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
