Dealmaking regarding DFU

Lets say for arguments sake (though I think the presumption quite risky) the DFU trial producing objectively good outcomes - outcomes that knowledgeable potential partners like a big pharma might see merit in partnering with.

CYP doesn't actually hold all the relevant IP to make such a deal at present as I understand the current state of play - as I understand the current state of play as its been reported through announcements CYP has an option to acquire the rights to the other materials from the IP owners of those other materials.

How much do we have to pay them though to be in a position to do a deal with the hypothetical big pharma interest in the event of good trial results (I stress again I don't currently presume good trial results)?

It seems to me that a possible use of funds might be to buy the IP from the other parts of the DFU trial process so as to be in a position to be able to go to big pharma with all the IP in CYPs hands - but I fear even as I type this that that might be giving too much credit to cynata management and the board. And it isn't giving them much at all.

Much of the problem cyp shareholders have is that cyp dealmakers like Ross and now I suppose Kilian (with the support of the board) have is that they are always a small player with only a part of a final health solution in almost any dealmaking arrangement they want to make.

Ross used to talk about having to sell part of the farm - a paddock - to be in a position to develop the rest of the farm - (this in the Kohler interview). But we saw the consequences of Ross going through several iterations of deals with Fujifilm.

We saw $5m break fees being lauded almost as some sort of triumph - a new strategic relationship to replace the old strategic relationship - well now it should be evident to all that we will have to pay more than that $5m to get back to as good a situation as the shareholders would have been in had Fujifilm actually carried out their original intentions as described to us by Ross and co being to actually take GvHD to the world and to wear the costs of doing so.

We are way way behind as a business because what Ross had us expect was not what Fujifilm did.

Fujifilm as a large company also had as a result of its size the advantage that other players would in my opinion know that Fujifilm could warchest an IP fight in the event of patent infringement. So them having the GvHD patent would have kept them fighting for CYP and Cymerus by default in the event of patent infringement so long as they were developing GvHD commercially.

But now with what funds would CYP warchest a patent infringement? And what if it is Fujifilm that does the infringing?

Dealmaking matters intimately to value adding in biotech. What precious seed capital is spent on matters immensely.

It could be that a relatively little amount of money might secure the IP rights to the non cellular aspects of the DFU 'solution' is it was spent now - but that if the current holders get to see good results in the trial and also that large pharma are interested then their price for selling their IP may go way up accordingly.

Who gets the value in deals in biotech depends on how well the dealmakers understand the marketplace.