(Total Views: 600)
Posted On: 06/07/2019 8:20:15 PM
Post# of 72445
I totally agree that it would be a tremendous hassle and risk to build a whole distribution channel by ourselves.
But can you clarify what you mean by
As far as I see it here are the two options mentioned by Mo and a third option open for discussion:
1) Standard license deal
- License B-OM now to big pharma
- Phase 3 costs are paid by BP
- Marketing and distribution done by BP
- Ipix get upfront payments, milestone payments and a 15% cut of sales
2) "Going it alone" strategy
- Phase 3 costs paid by Ipix (from IBD upfront payment). Risk until NDA from FDA 100% Ipix.
- Marketing and distribution done by Ipix
- Ipix get NO upfront payments, NO milestone payments, BUT keeps 100% cut of sales
3) Mix of both
- Phase 3 costs paid by Ipix (from IBD upfront payment). Risk until NDA from FDA 100% Ipix.
- Marketing and distribution done by BP
- Ipix get NO upfront payments, NO milestone payments, BUT Ipix keeps X% cut of sales
So basically in option #3 we carry costs and risk all the way until we have a marketable product with a NDA granted by the FDA. In this case I assume the should get a higher sales cut, right? But how high? Maybe 50/50% cut of sales?
As far as I know Ipix always preferred option #1, right? Option #2 is the most hassle, biggest risk but also biggest return by far. I was wondering what the real-life chance of option #3 is and how much more of possible ROI is to expect in this case.
Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstood any of our options.
But can you clarify what you mean by
Quote:? Are you talking about a standard licensing deal?
I would personally prefer we get to P3 and turn over all products to the professional marketers to take it from there
As far as I see it here are the two options mentioned by Mo and a third option open for discussion:
1) Standard license deal
- License B-OM now to big pharma
- Phase 3 costs are paid by BP
- Marketing and distribution done by BP
- Ipix get upfront payments, milestone payments and a 15% cut of sales
2) "Going it alone" strategy
- Phase 3 costs paid by Ipix (from IBD upfront payment). Risk until NDA from FDA 100% Ipix.
- Marketing and distribution done by Ipix
- Ipix get NO upfront payments, NO milestone payments, BUT keeps 100% cut of sales
3) Mix of both
- Phase 3 costs paid by Ipix (from IBD upfront payment). Risk until NDA from FDA 100% Ipix.
- Marketing and distribution done by BP
- Ipix get NO upfront payments, NO milestone payments, BUT Ipix keeps X% cut of sales
So basically in option #3 we carry costs and risk all the way until we have a marketable product with a NDA granted by the FDA. In this case I assume the should get a higher sales cut, right? But how high? Maybe 50/50% cut of sales?
As far as I know Ipix always preferred option #1, right? Option #2 is the most hassle, biggest risk but also biggest return by far. I was wondering what the real-life chance of option #3 is and how much more of possible ROI is to expect in this case.
Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstood any of our options.
(0)
(0)
