Cellmid Zoetis, page-11

There is an obvious lack of understanding of the nature of IP licensing.

A biotech company (here Cellmid) does not engage a partner to carry out research on its behalf on the possible application of its IP towards a diagnostic or therapeutic application.

The partner company pays a contracted initial milestone amount to access the IP for it’s own investigation into a possible application of its own choice. Once it makes that payment it is no longer any of Cellmid’s business how that company chooses to plan and undertake its study. That includes giving any form of a report on progress or on results obtained.

If the partner has reached the point in development that it believes it has a product now ready for commercialisation it normally would need to then contact Cellmid to activate a secondary milestone payment as defined by the contract, allowing it to go forward. That should be the first time that Cellmid formally hears again from the partner. Successful commercialisation normally would involve later royalty payments.

There are many possible reasons for delays, including internal corporate politics and research personnel career changes. There has been some indication that internal politics due to corporate restructuring may apply to the Quest/Celera contract.

There would be no benefit to the partner to have the results of its investigations revealed to anyone prior to being commercialisation ready. If progressing well this might encourage a competitor to commence a similar investigation. If not progressing well for whatever reason, why not let a potential competitor expend the same time and monetary costs to find that out for themselves?

For these reasons it would even be inappropriate for Cellmid to request some indication of progress achieved. Put simply, it is none of Cellmid’s business. There likely would be some form of confidential personal interactions as a matter of courtesy.

Claiming that management is intentionally silent or lax in not reporting on progress simply indicates once again ignorance of the nature of the business. Yet another example of unjustified negativity.