[rayiner]

> The killer detail (in the article) is that 1/3 of the (small) development cost of 40 million were borne by the Dutch tax payer. How did that patent end up in a big pharma portfolio?

It says so in the first few paragraphs: Novartis licensed (bought) the right to sell the drug in Europe. The patents remain with the hospital.

The hospital that developed the drug is a public hospital associated with a public university. So the government paid for development, and (indirectly) to government is benefitting from the license fees paid by Novartis. That is co-profiting.

[eecc]

The article reads as follows:

“Novartis bought the rights to Lutathera with a $3.9-billion-euro takeover of French company AAA last year.”

Where exactly does it say that the patents have remained with the hospital?

[fouc]

Buying the rights means licensing the rights of the patent, otherwise it would've said "Novartis bought the patent to Lutathera"

[sonnyblarney]

"Buying the rights means licensing the rights of the patent"

I don't think journalistic language necessarily so accurate.

I don't think we can say for sure what changed hands in the transaction, but it should not matter anyhow.

If they bought everything, then the total lifetime value of the asset would hopefully have been baked into the price.

[Vinnl]

There's an interesting Dutch article from January about how the rights ended up with this company [1]. It doesn't say anything about patents, but it does say (my translation):

> The producer (AAA, later bought by Novartis) gets exclusive rights to sell the drug, for ten years in the EU, and for seven in the US. The only exception is hospital pharmacies preparing the drug for their own patients.

[1] https://nos.nl/artikel/2266712-hoe-nederlands-kankeronderzoe...