Skip to content
  • Debatforum
  • Seneste
  • Populære
  • Bruger
Temaer
  • Light
  • Dark

Kollaps
FORSIDEN
Log ind Opret konto

Genmab — September 2020

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Genmab
1.0k Indlæg 1 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    deleted-user
    wrote on sidst redigeret af
    #872

    @Goose3, tak for det hurtige svar. Jeg støtter vurderingen og tror det juridiske grundlag er solidt og tilstrækkeligt fra Genmabs side og JnJ "blot" tager et wild shot i uafprøvet land, i forsøget på at adskille forløbet i 2 uafhængige forløb - hvilket er problematisk når det ene patent afhænger af det andet patent

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • Helge_LarsenPI-redaktørH Offline
      Helge_LarsenPI-redaktørH Offline
      Helge_LarsenPI-redaktør
      wrote on sidst redigeret af
      #873

      Hansen&LARSEN omkring Genmab: https://www.proinvestor.com/index.php?p=debat_1&postid=87013

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • SolsenS Offline
        SolsenS Offline
        Solsen
        wrote on sidst redigeret af
        #874

        RBC analyse støtter Genmab. De har tilsyneladende set licensatalen og hvis de refererer rigtigt ligner JNJ en taber.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • R Offline
          R Offline
          Raffles
          wrote on sidst redigeret af
          #875

          I artiklen er der faktisk et link til licensaftalen hos Sec.gov! Se under andet afsnit hvor ordet licensaftale er med rød skrift og tryk på dette - så åbnes nyt link. Her kan også ses royaltysatser mv. Jeg havde nok ikke lige regnet med at denne ville blive gjort tilgængelig:-)

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • StockBullS Offline
            StockBullS Offline
            StockBull
            wrote on sidst redigeret af
            #876

            Nemlig 🙂

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • E Offline
              E Offline
              E_L
              wrote on sidst redigeret af
              #877

              can you post the link here?

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • JørgenVarnæsJ Offline
                JørgenVarnæsJ Offline
                JørgenVarnæs
                wrote on sidst redigeret af
                #878

                Link to agreement - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1434265/000104746919003334/a2238822zex-10_1.htm

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • E Offline
                  E Offline
                  E_L
                  wrote on sidst redigeret af
                  #879

                  thks

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • R Offline
                    R Offline
                    Raffles
                    wrote on sidst redigeret af
                    #880

                    @EL - yes, but JV was faster. Enjoy the reading:-)

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • G Offline
                      G Offline
                      GeorgeBest
                      wrote on sidst redigeret af
                      #881

                      Dejlig at se RBC aktivt tager stilling til hvad de mener udfaldet bliver. I stedet for skandinaviske analytikere, der bare straks melder ud hvad værst tænkelige scenarie måtte blive...

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • StockBullS Offline
                        StockBullS Offline
                        StockBull
                        wrote on sidst redigeret af
                        #882

                        Ja det er desværre sådan at nogen kun beskriver den det værst tænkelige senarie unde at fremhæve det mest sandsynlige senarie. Man kunne have dem mistænkt for at gøre det med spekulation for øje

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • Helge_LarsenPI-redaktørH Offline
                          Helge_LarsenPI-redaktørH Offline
                          Helge_LarsenPI-redaktør
                          wrote on sidst redigeret af
                          #883

                          Mioklubben i dag: Genmab fra 17-18 min inde i udsendelsen. https://www.euroinvestor.dk/podcast/millionaerklubben-hvordan-ser-fremtiden-ud-for-genmab

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • E Offline
                            E Offline
                            E_L
                            wrote on sidst redigeret af
                            #884

                            I could find more enjoyable things to read @Raffles 😉 I am curious to find out how long this dispute has been going on already...was it already there when the hexacd38 deal was done..

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • E Offline
                              E Offline
                              E_L
                              wrote on sidst redigeret af
                              #885

                              I find it hard to find merit for JNJ's case in this document, but then again, i am not a lawyer, and JNJ has a whole army of lawyers...

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • SolsenS Offline
                                SolsenS Offline
                                Solsen
                                wrote on sidst redigeret af
                                #886

                                I think the case came up when JNJ paid royalty for Q220 …

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • BulderB Offline
                                  BulderB Offline
                                  Bulder
                                  wrote on sidst redigeret af
                                  #887

                                  According to 14.4 (A) the case must have been running for a while: "Subject to Clauses 14.5 and 14.6, if any Dispute has not been resolved by good faith negotiations or mediation between the Parties pursuant to Clauses 14.2 or 14.3 above or the Parties have not agreed to mediate, then the Parties shall settle the Dispute by submitting the matter to binding arbitration pursuant".

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • BulderB Offline
                                    BulderB Offline
                                    Bulder
                                    wrote on sidst redigeret af
                                    #888

                                    So first negotiation, then mediation and then binding arbitration.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • E Offline
                                      E Offline
                                      E_L
                                      wrote on sidst redigeret af
                                      #889

                                      I doubt that Solsen. Arbitration is the last step and the step that will make it public.Surely they would have wanted to avoid that

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • E Offline
                                        E Offline
                                        E_L
                                        wrote on sidst redigeret af
                                        #890

                                        & Bulder typs faster 😉

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • E Offline
                                          E Offline
                                          E_L
                                          wrote on sidst redigeret af
                                          #891

                                          Evaluate Vantage Esmo 2020 – J&J goes for broke with lung cancer bispecific - https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/events/conferences/esmo-2020-jj-goes-broke-lung-cancer-bispecific

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

                                          Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                                          Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                                          With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                                          Tilmeld Log ind

                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Debatforum
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Populære
                                          • Bruger