Common use of Licensing Activities Clause in Contracts

Licensing Activities. The granting institutions that developed the present technology have made a substantial effort to license this invention. The following U.S. companies that manufacture and market technologies in this field have had an opportunity to review this invention for the purpose of licensing: Xxxxxx Laboratories, Avid Therapeutics, Inc., Xxxxxxx-Xxxxx Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Lipitek International, Microprobe Corporation, and OncoRx. Unfortunately, no U.S. companies have sufficient interest to license this invention. There are several competing technologies to this invention. The grantee institutions are not certain but, they believe one of the reasons they have not been successful in securing a U.S. manufacturer is due to these competing technologies. Two of the other competing technologies are nucleoside analogs and the U.S. market for treatment of HBV is apparently too small for U.S. companies to pursue another alternative therapy. Further, it follows that if the U.S. market is not large enough to attract a domestic manufacturer, it would not be commercially feasible to create an FDA compliant facility to manufacture the subject compounds in the U.S.

Licensing Activities. The granting grantee institutions that developed the present technology have made a substantial effort to license this invention. The following U.S. companies that manufacture and market technologies in this field have had an opportunity to review this invention for the purpose of licensing: Xxxxxx Laboratories, Avid Therapeutics, Inc., Xxxxxxx-Xxxxx Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Lipitek International, Microprobe Microscobe Corporation, and OncoRx. Unfortunately, no U.S. companies have sufficient interest to license this invention. There are several competing technologies to this invention. The grantee institutions are not certain but, but they believe one of the reasons they have not been successful in securing a U.S. manufacturer is due to these competing technologies. Two of the other competing technologies are nucleoside analogs and the U.S. market for treatment of HBV is apparently too small for U.S. companies to pursue another alternative therapy. Further, it follows that if the U.S. market is not large enough to attract a domestic manufacturer, it would not be commercially feasible to create an FDA compliant facility to manufacture the subject compounds in the U.S.