Replies to post #23148 on BioCurex, Inc.(fka BOCX)

[mcd2inga]

IMO, Abbott is doing nothing with Recaf.
The discussions may have gone something like this:
Abbott decided to return the license. Dr. Moro didn't want that and convinced them that Recaf would eventually be a commercial product. They modified the license to remove Abbott's responsibilities to develop further and let Abbott keep the $50,000. Biocurex will continue working with Recaf. If there is eventually a commercial product, then Abbott has the option to sell the product. Biocurex also has the option to cancel Abbott's license.
Basically, Abbott can just do nothing until someone else develops Recaf to a commercial product.

- I hope this isn't a duplicate. I wrote it once and lost it somehow.

mcd

[HALF FULL GLASS]

Gold, You forgot to mention what Biocurex got in return for the amendment. Biocurex forwent the 50k but got much more in return than a measly 50k.
Why is it you always forget the good parts for Biocurex???
Is that by mistake or by design?

in exchange for BioCurex receiving a higher royalty. BioCurex also obtained the right to terminate its license with Abbott if that company does not agree within 90 days to new due diligence obligations for the commercialization of RECAF-based products.
This amendment is NOT a termination of our licensing
agreement. In fact, Abbott co-authored a presentation in an
international cancer congress showing similar results to those previously reported by BioCurex. The amendment shifts the research and development effort to BioCurex, which in actuality has already been the case for the past 2 years. Moreover, Abbott is the only licensee allowed to sublicense the technology to third parties.

Thus, the termination or transfer of the Abbott license to
BioCurex or another licensee, would allow the recipient to sublicense
the RECAF tests to an unlimited number of sub-licensees,
thus removing the semi-exclusivity restrictions currently in
place. Since the termination/transfer of the Abbott license could
be accompanied by granting Abbott a sublicense under the same
terms they have now, this would allow BioCurex to “keep the cake
and eat it too”. The ability to sublicense to an unrestricted
number of companies has a considerable value to either BioCurex
or to anyone interested in acquiring the Abbott license.

Another important concession negotiated with Abbott was the
removal of manual tests from the semi-exclusivity terms of the
original licensing agreement. This, together with the exclusion
of manual assays from the Inverness licensing agreement, has
made possible the direct commercialization of the RECAF tests
directly by the company to smaller markets without sacrificing
the commercialization potential -- many times larger -- of its
licensees.