Re: Farmas USA
Nuevo e interesante concepto: dilución de tecnología. Consiste básicamente en vender parcelas de la propiedad intelectual. Todo esto lo saco de la conferencia de financiación de pequeñas farmas de ACTC. Una vez leída y teniendo en cuenta que son líderes absolutos en el campo, mi visión personal es que la amenaza de la dilución de las acciones se aleja y que es el momento de entrar.
ACTC
You have to take money to invest in science. You have to move things forward and it's just a question of what point in your evolution as a company, what sort of dilution do you take? The more successful you are, the more you wish you could take, so we've been lucky in taking advantage of some of these maybe current and past markets. We've raised almost $200 million dollars in the last 9 months, and that's put us in a very different position, to think about forward integration, to think about adding value to our drugs versus the interest in partnering.
Sangamo and ACT are probably on kind of opposite ends of the spectrum in many regards in that you have a platform technology that can be applied to a lot of different areas, where application in one area doesn't necessarily create a competitive problem licensing it to somebody else and that's a wonderful platform to be in. I think if you look at the clinical program I've been talking about, the RPE program, you know, the issue there is it's beautiful in that it's the same cell, the cell formulation of cell that can be used to treat 200 different indications, but it's difficult to imagine in any one geography trying to license multiple parties for different indications, right, because now you worry about cross over sales and things like that. You know I think the dynamics of deciding when to partner a program like that are a little bit different. The way I look at it is it's that scale, right, which is hanging onto it as long as you can to build as much value as you can. The probable values are probably a multiple of 10 as you go from preclinical, to approval of your IND and into Phase I, and then another multiple of 10 in terms of what you could potentially command for you know the overall deal structure, but certainly more of an up front licensing fee getting to the end of Phase I, having not only some safety data, but maybe some decent efficacy data or hints of efficacy data and again another multiple of 10 when you get to the end of Phase II, in part because the risk goes down, and I think that's the way we approach this. We would say we're going to balance the value of it against the value of bringing a big pharma or biotech partner to the table that has much more experience and a lot more bandwidth to put behind all of what I would call the final mile problems in a clinical program, right. It's one thing to conduct the clinical trials with one or two countries, but having somebody who understands the global regulatory strategy that you need for this to be carried out and able to coordinate it if possible in multiple jurisdictions to where you have the opportunity for a global pivotal study for example, that can manage the manufacturing scale up with you and think about what your final product is going to look like, so final formulation in time that you have that ready for Phase III. That can help you manage the pricing and reimbursement discussions that right now everyone says you need to be starting those with at least the major payors as early as Phase I. So I think if you look at the likelihood of success for any given product, I mean it's clear the likelihood of success is going to be a lot greater bringing in the resources of a big pharma company as early as you can, and for us that's been the calculation of where's that balance."
«Después de nada, o después de todo/ supe que todo no era más que nada.»
