RE:RE:RE:RE:Denali-TakedaI should have been a little clearer with repect to licensing agreements in my previous post. The 4th paragraph stated:
"The Denali/Takeda announcement does not indicate what each of the companies brings to the table, although with the size of the upfront payments, it looks like Denali is bringing everything to the deal. In other words, the agreement does not look like a licensing deal. It's called an "option and collaboration agreement" in the press release. A licensing agreement would be where a company like Takeda brought a therapeutic into the deal and a company like Denali would bring the means of transport across the BBB to the deal. As such, I don't think we could expect the upfront payments to be as high as the upfront payments in the Denali/Takeda deal."
I should make myself clearer about that highlighted statement. I mean to say that with licensing deals you can't expect upfront payments and overall deal valuations to be as high for Bioasis as partnerships might be with respect to our own drugs.
In licensing deals, the pharma brings their own therapeutic to the deal so they would not be paying as much to Bioasis as they would if they were entering a partnership deal in which Bioasis has ownership of everything. Clearly, our in-house programs should have far greater value to Bioasis than licensing agreements when comparing the two types of deals based on the diseases and potential commercial markets that each would serve.
jdstox