question re patents, page-4

If Cipla or any other third party wish to manufacture Relenza in order to supply local orders in a timely fashion then they will have to reach agreement with the holder of the license, as well as complying with all conditions placed on the license by BTA. There was a quote that no fees were due since it was a pre-1995 drug. That may have been a misquote or a simple error on their part. Regardless, coverage is complete until 2011 at least and Cipla and anyone else will be paying full fees to BTA through GSK at a rate to be determined but not less than 7%. As I have said many times, the rate should now be at least double given the Gilead/Roche agreement. No sub-licenses should be granted at lower rates. India is a new biotech hub in development, with very sophisticated capacity. Wishing to join the first world of biotech they know what is required. There will be no risk of patent infringement.

Relenza production (or at least Zanamivir production) can be cut to a few weeks. Zanamivir is then mixed with lactose and packed in the Discaler (a process that has taken months in the past because GSK is not geared up with large orders). That should all change now so production runs should be faster, especially using companies like Cipla who are motivated. Expect production to reach over 100 M orders pa in 2008 since Roche will have reached at least 300 M pa by then. I therefore expect BTA income to exceed $200 M pa in 2 years.