Genmab — Marts 2025
-
E L, thank you very much for the link10.08. The article provides relevant perspective on AbbVie's lawsuit against Genmab.
-
Does it worry you too, that Gmab is not arguing they come up with idea of using disaccharides to enhance the hydrophilicity. Rather they claim, "according to Genmab, AbbVie has never pursued the development of products using the alleged trade secrets — nor sought to protect them through patents. In Genmab’s view, this raises questions about whether AbbVie is now trying to assert control over innovations it neither commercialized nor legally secured.
-
yes Helge, it will always be difficult to judge a relationship from the outside, we'll probably never really know what exactly is at play. https://pharmaphorum.com/news/abbvie-sues-genmab-claiming-trade-secrets-theft
-
-
I also had to think about the remark from Jan at the time of the AbbVie deal, when he spoke about 'AbbVie's next generation ADC technology'. So I assume at that time they studied AbbVie's technology, but were not impressed enough for it to lead to anything. (and why did Genmab only notice that special part of the ADC technology when Profound showed it, and not AbbVie?? Was it even shown?)
-
Remember from that deal 'The discovery research collaboration will combine proprietary antibodies from both companies along with Genmab's DuoBody technology and AbbVie's payload and ADC technology to select and develop up to four additional differentiated next-generation antibody-based product candidates'.
-
It had already been a question mark for me why there were was nothing coming out of this. I had assumed the 50/50 split could be a potential hurdle for AbbVie to develop with Genmab what they could potentially do cheaper with a royalty deal or themselves. But it doesn't immediately show a deep and strong partner relationship if nothing comes out of it.
-
At the same time, these are 2 professional parties that should be able to put revenues first and therefore I am not that worried about Epcoritamab, not for current indications, nor for potential future plans for autoimmune diseases. But for now I am assuming the other part of the original deal is dead for now (I already sort of was assuming that...). Just like I don't expect any partnerships with JNJ anymore.
-
Regarding 12:24 the problem is that the wording is a wrong interpretation of what Genmab is saying. According to Genmab there was no trade secret in the first place (they call it an alleged trade secret several times) so they are not assuming that Abbvie had any innovation at all
-
Genmab trækkes ind i retssag om tyveri af forretningshemmelighed af amerikansk gigant https://proinvestor.com/investornyt/1295173/genmab-traekkes-ind-i-retssag-om-tyveri-af-forretningshemmelighed-af-amerikansk-gigant
-
Jyske Bank: Genmab – Sagsøgt af partneren AbbVie https://proinvestor.com/investornyt/1295153/jyske-bank-genmab-sagsogt-af-partneren-abbvie
-
From inception he encouraged openness of data and technology, looked for partnerships in academia, healthcare field and with competing pharma / bio. A strategy that backfired to him maybe just a few times to often. I wonder how his worldview has changed the last few years...
-
EL 12:54, lets hope that. It will just make the case muck easier if Gmab has strong proof of independent development of the linker... case close sort of. But that might not be the case. and that make the protections around the alleged secret very importent. If there is no protection of the secret it is not a secret.
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