Tom, I would love to be able to reach the same conclusion as you...

First 4 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
jellyroll

940 Posts.

302

03/04/24

13:53

Post #: 73168305
Share

Originally posted by tomhagen: ↑

That is one way to look at it. I personally think it's unlikely. Would Eisai - big pharma with a multi-billion dollar market cap - try and pressure a microcap vendor by threatening to withhold work over $15m over 7 years? Why would they give back anything to Cogstate if this was the case?

This amendment is likely to have been initiated by Cogstate because they think more than $15m can be extracted from the IP by moving Eisai to a non-exclusive agreement.

Eisai always wanted Cognigram as a lead-gen tool for their own approved AZ drugs. Looking at this from afar when a number of AZ treatments are made available, it's much better not to have a digital assessment tied to specific drug company or a specific treatment. There will be less room for conflict of interest and less motivation for big pharma companies to introduce their own individual exclusive digital assessments.

Expand

Tom, I would love to be able to reach the same conclusion as you but I am struggling to do so. The one thing I am pretty clear about is that there is a very low probability, that on an net basis, Cogstate will be able to replace the US$ 15 million of healthcare revenue it is giving up in the same time frame. The only way they will be able to do it is with more than one significant partnerships.

I think in retrospect the departure of Brad's wife as the head of healthcare was probably a sign that things were not going to plan with Eisai and Cognigram.

CGS Price at posting: $1.30 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply