posted by Pannabhaso in another forum (with correction):
"Actually, what you have posted is not true but regular readers would not be surprised by that fact. The reason why BASF objected to the patent and the reason why both the CSIRO and BASF objected to the Galapagos patent EP1444346 was because of the implications for veterinary applications. There are likely to be a number commercialised veterinary ddRNAi products before the patent expires and these will be worth millions of dollars in royalties.
As Benitec has no interest in veterinary applications, this decision will have little impact on future revenue. Even if Benitec loses an appeal against the decision, royalties will only be paid when human ddRNAi products are commercialised in Europe and there won't be too many of them before the expiry of the patent. This is why the current management of Benitec are taking the company in a direction that does not rely on gatekeeper IP to generate revenue. The company will make its revenue from its pipeline, with IP that is specific to the ailments being treated. Also, any revenue lost in Europe (should an appeal fail) could be regained by Galapagos having to pay royalties in jurisdictions where its objections have ve to await the outcome of Bayer's objection to EP1444346. failed, such as the UK and USA, should it commercialise any ddRNAi products.
If there are grounds for appeal, then I am sure that the CSIRO will lodge one. We also have to await the outcome of BASF's objection to EP1444346.
end
bye
BLT Price at posting:
$1.15 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
