Mee eens.
Ik heb het stuk over Sangamo nog even opgezocht.
For example, we have an exclusive license from the NIH for "the development and sale of AAV5 based therapeutic products to be delivered to the brain or liver for treatment of human diseases originating in the brain or liver," other than arthritis-related diseases. We also have a non-exclusive license from the NIH for the development and sale of AAV5 based therapeutic products to treat human diseases other than those covered by our exclusive license.
Hierin zit al een onduidelijkheid voor de buitenstaander. Als het vermeende exclusieve niet alle denkt, wat vult het niet-exclusieve dan aan? En hoe verhoudt zich dat op onderstaande aanvulling?
We believe that our exclusive license from the NIH includes the systemic administration of AAV5-based therapeutic products so long as such therapeutic products are "to be delivered to the brain or liver for treatment of human diseases originating in the brain or liver." However, Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., or Sangamo, has announced that it has broad worldwide licenses to use AAV vectors, including AAV5 and AAV6, for research, development and commercialization of therapies for hemophilia A and B, Huntington's disease and other targets. We believe Sangamo's view may be that our exclusive license excludes systemic administration because Sangamo interprets the phrase "to be delivered to" to require direct administration into the brain or liver. Our view is that the phrase "to be delivered to" indicates the ultimate destination of the therapy and not the location where it is first introduced into the body. Although we think our interpretation is correct, there can be no assurance that a court would agree with our interpretation regarding the meaning of this phrase. If our interpretation of the phrase "to be delivered to" is incorrect, then others may obtain licenses from the NIH that may enable them to compete with us in the systemic administration of AAV5-based therapeutics for treatment of human diseases originating in the brain or liver, which could harm our business.
Uiteraard kennen we de juiste licentie-omschrijving van Sangamo niet. Op basis van bovenstaande volg ik de redenatie van QURE: het gaat om de bestemming (hersenen of lever), niet om de locatie van toedienen ("to be delivered to" en niet "into").
@El Gaucho: Zou het ook niet andersom kunnen uitvallen, dat QURE van Sangamo royalties zou moeten ontvangen?