Port, Why not ask Peter Cook this question. The party developing the new delivery system normally owns the patent which in this case is GSK. The exception is where the party had in the licensing contract allow another party to own it or jointly own it – unlikely with the BTA idiots.
Those who followed the law suit will remember GSK “best endeavour” failures to research alternative delivery system. BTA valued damages on a range of values with the higher value reflecting an improved delivery system. It is interesting to note that GSK is now pursuing alternative delivery system in the sunset years of the relenza patent.
BTA joint ventured with Aerogen in early 2005 to develop a delivery system using Aerogen’s micro-pump nebuliser technology. I believe this system is now used for LANI. IF only the BTA idiots have the common sense to take back the relenza license, BTA would have the opportunity to apply the Aerogen technology to extent the relenza royalties with other parties until LANI comes to market.
Those excited about GSK researching a new delivery system (and increased 160 million courses production capacity) should understand the time taken to get regulatory approval and who own the patent for the new delivery system. As a guide, Relenza is a trade name and GSK owns it.
BTA Price at posting:
$1.21 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
