InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

BonelessCat

10/10/11 4:28 PM

#54823 RE: noretreat #54818

I would need to go through my notes from 3 years ago when a partnership was on the table. But, off the top of my head, $100 million with $15 to $20 million upfront and the rest in benchmark payments through NDA and market approval.

Back then the numbers I came up with were based on licensing for manufacture and market, which would net NNVC a royalty ranging anywhere from 10% to 22%, depending on the risk the Big Pharma took in its role in development. Back in the pre-2008 period there were a dozen early licenses signed during animal studies where the development biopharma received more than $100 million and at least a 7% royalty. Contracts after Phase 1 fetch 10% and 15% royalties with late Phase contracts earning significantly higher.

I think NNVC will be looking for a marketing and distribution partner, which means the numbers shift upwards for earnings against gross sales. Emergency and critical care use authorization could run as high as $2000 per course with NNVC netting 40% of that. That would be 200K cases a year for FluCide, and expanding rapidly from there.

Roche paid Gilead 14% to 22% for royalties after licensing to complete the development, human trials, FDA approval and manufacture and marketing for TamiFlu. After emergency use authorization, first year earnings for TamiFlu sales were $1.5 billion against which Gilead earned an average of 19%. Roche had already paid for all development and approval costs since 1996 plus more than a hundred million in benchmark payments, and another $67 million in back payment Royalties for use awarded in late 2005 just before FDA emergency use authorization.

If NNVC hooks up in a similar way, I think earnings even in a royalty structured agreement will be at least as good as Gilead/Roche.