100% sicher mit Protein Design Labs

entweder lässt sich PDI vorher aufkaufen oder sie erwerben selbst mit dem Cash etwas Neues, dass sie dann zwar kleinere Brötchen backen, aber immer noch mitmischen können.

Das "allerschlimmste" wäre die Liquidation, dann dürfte bis dahin auch genügend Cash angehäuft sein.

Fast noch wichtiger ist aber offenbar der Novartis-Deal. Die Berechtigung der Patente in Europa stehen damit offenbar nicht mehr in Frage, wenn ich das so überfliege und weiterer Cash Flow ist bei den Hauptumsatzträgern damit garantiert  

By Val Brickates Kennedy 15%10%5%0%-5%10a11a12p1p2p3pPDLI NVS RHHBY BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- Shares of PDL BioPharma /quotes/comstock/15*!pdli/quotes/nls/pdli (PDLI 5.78, +0.92, +18.95%) soared 17% in early action Monday after the biotech group announced it plans to pay a quarterly dividend of 15 cents per share. The first dividend will be distributed on March 15. PDL also announced that it has resolved certain issues regarding its patent dispute with Novartis AG /quotes/comstock/13*!nvs/quotes/nls/nvs (NVS 56.12, +0.87, +1.58%) . Under the deal, Novartis has agreed not to challenge the validity of PDL's "Queen" patent to European authorities. In exchange, PDL will make certain payments to Novartis on sales of the eye care drug Lucentis. The product, which utilizes PDL technology, is marketed in the U.S. by Roche's /quotes/comstock/11i!rhhby (RHHBY 37.75, +0.70, +1.89%) Genentech unit and overseas by Novartis.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/...vidend-litigation-news-2011-02-28  

Nach Börsenschluss kamen auch noch die Q4-Zahlen

Hier mal die Kurzversion:

4:02PM PDL BioPharma misses by $0.01, beats on revs (PDLI) 5.55 +0.69 : Reports Q4 (Dec) earnings of $0.20 per share, $0.01 worse than the Thomson Reuters consensus of $0.21; revenues rose 30.7% year/year to $76.1 mln vs the $74.1 mln consensus.

Also, etwas weniger Gewinn, etwas mehr Umsatz... Alles recht undramatisch  

Offenbar haben Roche / Genentech die Zahlungen and PDI eingestellt, nachdem Novartis die Werthaltigkeit des Patentes in Frage gestellt hat.

Nun ist aber aufgrund des Vergleiches nicht entschieden worden. PDL hat aber auf Zahlung und Vertragsbruch gegen Roche / Genentech geklagt.

Wenn das Patent Queens aber weiterhin  rechtmäßig besteht, sollte dieser Prozess locker gewonnen werden und die seit Sommer 2010 fälligen Beträge inklusive Strafzinsen an PDL überwiesen werden.  

0,15 Euro. Ganz nett! Trotzdem schwebt das Ende des Patentschutzes über PDL.  

 

dies bietet sich bei den Kursen auch an. Das Ende des Patentschutzes schwebt halt wie ein Damoklesschwert über PDL.  

Ja, ich bin dabei. Heute kommen Quartalszahlen, dann sehen wir weiter.

 

 

das hast Du schon im März gepostet, danach ging`s weiter rauf!

 

dass der Kurs deswegen sinken muss. Sollte man allerdings für ein Langfristinvest bedenken.  

Interessiert sich für diese Aktie keiner mehr?Habe vor kurzem ein paar Stück gekauft.

 

 

Question: The bulk of PDL BioPharma's  revenues are derived from royalty payments. The company generated more  than $200 million in royalty revenue through the first six months of  this year. Would you tell us what we should know about the Queen patent  expirations that are scheduled for the next three years, and should PDL  BioPharma be considered a liquidating asset as some have suggested?

Mr. McLaughlin:  It's a good question. The last of the Queen et al. patents expire in  December of 2014, but importantly, we'll continue to get paid royalties  some period of time after that because royalties will still be due to  PDL on product that is made before patent expiration and sold after  patent expiration.

But to the point in your question, there is a  time when the royalty obligations will expire, and they will no longer  have to pay royalties based on the Queen et al. patents.

And so  what we have been doing is, at the request of our shareholders, we've  been taking some of the money from our royalty income, and using it to  try and identify other revenue-generating assets. And what we said to  our shareholders is this is an exercise we're going through in 2012 and  2013, and at the end of 2013 and beginning at 2014, we'll step back and  say, 'OK, have we identified sufficient revenue-generating assets that  it makes sense to continue PDL, or should we simply shut down the  company beginning in 2015 and 2016 and distribute the cash that we  receive from the current licensees under the Queen et al. patents and  get that money out to our shareholders as quickly as possible so that we  improve their returns?'

That's the decision we'll probably make  in late 2013 or early 2014, so there is a fork in the road for the  company at that point in time.

The Q4 2013/Q1 2014  "fork in the road" for PDLI includes upside from existing products  already in the market -- the patents may expire, but McLaughlin explains  that reducing overhead at that time to zero would create many quarters  of expense free royalty income that could be used to pay off existing  shareholders in a "special dividend" or the financial equivalent.

The CEO also states in this same interview that further potential upside exists with a yet unproven treatment for Alzheimer's:

We did have the potential for royalties on two Alzheimer's drugs, one being developed by a consortium of Pfizer (PFE) and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ),  but it did not work. The other one being developed by Lilly  demonstrated some provocative results on secondary end points, and they  are actually meeting with the regulators to see what the path forward is  on that one.

That is interesting, obviously, because Alzheimer's  disease is a high, unmet medical need, but also because we have a  know-how royalty that could run from 12.5 years from when it's first  commercialized. This could be a blockbuster product if, in fact, the  results are real and they can get FDA approval.

Approval will be based on those results or based on those results plus some additional trials. Unlike  our Queen et al. patents, which expire at the end of December 2014,  that know-how royalty would run, as I say, for 12.5 years from the time  of first commercial launch.(emphasis added)

A recent quarterly conference call  also provides another potentially significant source of future upside.  In response to a question from Roy Buchanan of JMP Securities,  McLaughlin states:

The second part is  the action in Nevada is -- it's not patent case or a case involving the  European patents. It's actually a contract case. So the question is  whether or not when Genentech sent that [fax] at the behest of Roche and  Novartis challenging the patents, whether that constituted a challenge  to our 2003 settlement agreement and a settlement agreement is a  contract and that's why I say this is breach of contract case, not a  patent case.

And the question is under the settlement agreement,  whether or not that fax constitutes a challenge which breaches a  settlement agreement and that's what's before the court.

A  positive resolution to this lawsuit for PDLI would also further support  an enterprise value that has come under challenge from many analysts.

The  estimated value of the future monetization of patents embedded in  pharmaceutical and biotechnology stocks is a field for significant  research and competing interpretations. A close technical and financial  analysis is warranted for those companies currently paying high current  dividend income with the potential for extreme upside. Investors would  be well rewarded in increasing their portfolio exposure to this  currently out-of-favor industry for those stocks that have significantly  undervalued patent portfolios.

 

 

 gute Zahlen gestern !!

anybody here ?

LG
keyar