Why would you even bother attacking Clinuvel, it is not...

Why would you even bother attacking Clinuvel, it is not overvalued, you don't know seem to know much about Biotechs and you don't know anything about this company except Afamelanotide was developed at a US University in 1980. There a many Biotechs on the ASX who have not made a single dollar of profit yet such as TLX, MSB, PNV, IMU and who have market cap.s about the same or higher than CUV. Without more capital or luck some of these could even go broke yet you decide to attack the one single Biotech who has FDA, EMA and TGA approval, no debt and is making increasingly large profits. That all points to a very well run company with a good business model and it also makes you sound quite simple and uninformed in your analysis to any educated reader.

@Shedjock pointed out the patent expiry is much later than you indicated PLUS you can add another 2 years to that exclusivity period if a paediatric version is developed (and this will happen). I'm not sure but if they add another orphan disease like XP then add another year to patents (this will also happen). Then on top of that any generic must still go through the FDA, TGA, EMA etc approval processes as well as not breaching any patents Clinuvel has in regards to their delivery method (this isnt a basic pill). So as can be seen it is unlikely there will be much threats from generics this decade. No one is comparing CUV to CSL which has a market cap around 100 times higher, but Clinuvel is unique in what they have done and will do. But i'm also guessing the 'tanning' you mentioned will be available in the OTC products at some point so safe, natural tanning providing DNA repair and solar protection so it's likely people you know will probably buy some and you will be able to tell them all about the history of where the wonder molecule was developed.

All IMO DYOR