"Competing products have gained considerable market share since...

"Competing products have gained considerable market share since the litigation started."

Can anyone explain the comment above (from the NOVUS recommendation)?

From what I have seen, Relenza has been doing well and that is why the money BTA were attempting to recover from GSK kept getting bigger.

GSK stepped up to the mark and attempted to bury BTA's case by drawing out the legal procedings in the courts. Hence the continual delays in the trial date and mountains of documentation changing hands.

Through mediation I think BTA & GSK saw that it was in everybody's best interest to start working together on Relenza given the Tamiflu resistance issue.

As stock piles are re-newed, Relenza has the opportunity to take a significantly larger share of stockpile inventories. Early stockpiles had low or zero levels of Relenza.

Whilst I would have liked to see GSK answer BTA's aligations in court and a positive settlement in BTA's favour, this was always going to be icing on the cake.

I believe the GSK settlement was designed to not look like a win for BTA. The real win with be future Relenza royality growth. Only time (or disclosure of information) will tell.