Doesn’t make sense to grant exclusivity if the contractual terms relative to sales quota have not been fulfilled - assuming that is the crux of the issue - we just don’t know.
If it is the issue, would you want to give me exclusivity on your product when I’ve not met my quota for the OEM you supply to my company?
It’s not just about what you change (exclusive rights), but when you can change it, or when you choose to do so.
Change is not only in the air regarding possibilities for RecoveryRx given the NOPAIN Act and possible CMS reimbursements. It is also in the air for ActiPatch, granted that has nothing to do with RRx and CMS, as far as we know.
Why is change before us? Should RRx given the above, reach critical mass adoption or even Standard of Care, a spillover effect could extend to ActiPatch, thus increasing it’s sales to a critical mass or more as consumers may see it as the smaller “doppelgänger” device of RRx.
We will find out what fruit, if any, is borne via the new “things” in process, as has been shared by others on this forum.
If “Once bitten, twice shy”, and “What’s past is prologue” is one’s belief, I see no reason to be invested in any way.
There is no path out of the darkness of the proverbial tunnel that can be entertained if one’s flashlight is pointed backwards instead of forward.
All imo.