He seemed to imply that, didn't he? I'd have to l

He seemed to imply that, didn't he? I'd have to listen again to capture that point more specifically, but my sense from the presentation was that they were already down the road to some degree with at least one counterparty on NASH, and they were both waiting on data. Based on recent pre-clinical deals for NASH, the up-front money may be more sizeable for such a deal. However, the relatively recent deals (GILD and Scholar Rock, for example) are worth large amounts up front and in milestones (e.g. ~$80mm between cash and common stock purchase up front, up to $1.5b overall) but relatively paltry royalties (single to low double digits).

It will be interesting to see how any potential NASH deal shapes up given the advanced state of the HIV program, since we expect significant revenue long before NASH would be likely to hit the market. That may change the dynamic of milestones vs. royalties, much like the late-stage nature of HIV did for the pending deal.

Oh, another tidbit I took away. Someone asked about the PCA test, and NP basically gave it a solid "no comment" in so many words. Sounded to me like that may be a point of contention in the lawsuit and he's not allowed to talk about it.