Replies to post #92077 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

From ITMN’s 1Q08 CC (http://staticorigin.seekingalpha.com/article/77859-intermune-inc-q1-2008-earnings-call-transcript?page=-1 ):

Terence Flynn (Lazard): I was just wondering…if your agreement with Roche for 191 precludes them from conducting, say, combination trials of a polymerase inhibitor and a protease inhibitor other than 191?

Dan Welch: Well, Terence, we have filed a redacted version of our contract with Roche in our 2006 10-K… if you read that, you will find that we have an exclusivity to each other for the mechanism of action that is protease inhibition. And there are consequences should that exclusivity be broken. And so, I would encourage you to look at the disclosure. And we feel very confident and very comfortable in our position that Roche is committed to 191 and has an exclusivity agreement with pretty important consequences to them should that agreement be broken.

[ghmm]

They updated the agreement a while back (among other things ITMN didn't get the upfront money on 2nd generation but I believe Roche was responsible for picking up the cost on all preclinical and I think Phase 1 work too). I am not sure if they updated the exclusivity then or not but in the original agreement Roche could not license or develop another PI while 191 was in development or until some date much further in the future (I don't recall the date but it was in the 2011-2013 range). NOw I am not sure if Roche can just flat out drop it because they think its got a safety signal or the market dynamics have changed. ITMN claimed equal say on jt comittee's with Roche taking the lead if I recall correctly.