2b or NOT to be, page-83

It was noted back to PAR to consider rather than seeking explanation on disclosure as we recognized the inherent complexity with intangible disclosure standards. Agree other peer bios probably do a better job listing all intangibles (both patents and IP protection). The golden goose is our exclusivity agreement with Bene and yet also not listed.

I would encourage you to follow-up directly beforehand to help clarify their future accounting treatment intent in this space.

On a separate but related note what is also apparent to me now from Iken's post above is the suggestion that PAR may be "ever-greening" patents due to a study back in 1972 that identified PPS effect on cartilage. What this term refers to is using loopholes in the patent law to make small changes such as through modes of administration or new dosages. The intent is naturally to create a defensive business strategy to avoid competition and earn outsized profits. However, this accusation could be levelled against any biopharma given that fact that ~80% of drugs associated with new patents are not new drugs rather existing ones. This law is unlikely to change anytime soon given there needs to be strong incentive to risk the upfront costs associated with R&D and innovation.

What PAR is doing with attempting to broaden their patent applications is to provide an additional layer of assurance, in additional to the barriers created via Bene exclusivities. Whether this strategy is in fact accreditive when it comes to signing a deal is a TBA.

If PPS proves to be as effective as currently indicated on pain, function and duration there appears to be plenty of room for future competition with or without patent protect for all of us to reap a significant windfall. And big pharma will be looking at it from the prospect of distributing it as a DMOAD "grand slam" blockbuster given no biosimilar generic is realistically attainable.