Momenta Pharmaceuticals CEO Discusses Q4 2012 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

 |  About: Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)
by: SA Transcripts


Good day ladies and gentlemen and thank you for your patience. You’ve joined Momenta Pharmaceuticals, fourth quarter and full year 2012 financial results conference call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. As a reminder, this conference may be recorded.

I would like to turn the call over to our host, the Senior Director of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications, Ms. Lora Pike. Ma’am, you may begin.

Lora Pike

Thank you Karen and good morning everyone. We thank you for joining us today for Momenta’s conference call, to discuss financial results for the 2012 fourth quarter and full year. Today’s call is being webcast and you can view the slides we will be presenting in the investor section of our website at

Joining me on the call with prepared remarks are Craig Wheeler, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Rick Shea, Chief Financial Officer. Following our remarks we will open the call to questions.

Before we begin, I’d like to mention that our call today will contain forward-looking statements about management’s future expectations, beliefs, plans and prospects. These forward-looking statements include comments about enoxaparin sodium injection commercial prospects and revenues, including comments regarding the fourth quarter revenue as indicative of future enoxaparin revenue and anticipated achievement of milestones and revenue in 2014 under the Baxter collaboration.

These forward-looking statements also comment on future operating expenses, cash burn and total operating expense for 2013. Our generic Copaxone program, ANDA review and patent litigation, timing expectations, and our other product development plans and expectations, including expectations of timing for clinical data results and our future development, partnering and commercialization potential for our development programs.

Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors referred to in the company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sep 30, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the section Risk Factors, as well as other documents that may be filed by Momenta from time to time with the SEC.

As a result of such risks, the company’s actual results may differ materially from those we will be discussing. We are providing this information on this conference call today as of today’s date and we assume no obligation to update these comments.

With that, I will now turn the call over to Craig.

Craig Wheeler

Thank you Lora and welcome everybody. Today I’ll start out with a quick review of the numbers for the fourth quarter and for the full year, which Rick will cover in more depth in his section. Then I’ll provide an overview of the current status of our key programs, and I’ll finish with a few reflections on the past year and my expectations for 2013.

2012 was a transition year for Momenta, as we built out and balanced the company in our three core areas; complex generics, biosimilars and novel drugs. Exciting areas where we have more opportunities than ever before to scale our business.

Our results for the full year were a net loss of $59 million, driven by our total enoxaparin revenues of $55 million and total operating costs of $124 million. We are pleased to report $10.8 million in product revenue to enoxaparin in the fourth quarter, based on Sandoz’s reported net sales of $85 million. We expected that the fourth quarter enoxaparin net sales would recover from the third quarter levels, which were negatively impacted by the competitive pricing pressures.

For the fourth quarter Sandoz reported stable market share in pricing and we are hopeful that that will continue; however, the enoxaparin market continues to remain competitive and Rick will have more information on our expectations for financial performance for 2013 in his prepared remarks.

I’ll start my program updates with enoxaparin, specifically our ongoing litigation with Amphastar and Watson, which is now an activist. In August of last year, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion explaining its decision to state the preliminary injunction that had prevented Amphastar, an activist from launching their generic lovenox.

The appellate court ruled that Amphastar’s use of our patented method was protected by the Hatch-Waxman’s Safe Harbor. In November our request for an en banc appellate review of the ruling was denied and we are now planning to file a cert petition in the next few days for Supreme Court review.

As a result of the appellate court ruling, the case has been remanded to the District Court and Amphastar has filed a motion for summary judgment. A schedule for briefing that motion has been set.

We believe that the appellate court’s safe harbor ruling is contrary to the language and the intent of Hatch-Waxman, so we and Sandoz plan to continue our efforts to over turn this ruling; however, it’s clear that the judicial process could take a considerable amount of time.

Turning now to M356, our generic version of Copaxone, the ANDA is under active FDA review and we remain confident that it can be approved under the 505(j) pathway as an interchangeable generic to Copaxone.

In November the FDA issued a denial of Teva’s fourth and latest citizen’s petition related to generic Copaxone. In that letter, the FDA rejected Teva’s request, including that developers of a generic Copaxone be required to submit clinical study data using relative safety and efficacy end points, and that a bioequivalence waiver should not be granted, because Copaxone is a collative solution.

The agency stated that there is no evidence that Copaxone is a colloidal solution as alleged by Teva. On the contrary, the agency re-traded its authority, supported by the courts to exercise its scientific discretion as to what data will be sufficient for an ANDA approval, and its authority to determine sameness in approving a generic Copaxone, ANDA without clinical date.

The ANDA review continues to advance and our dialogue with the FDA continues to be active, but we cannot predict the timing. We continue to believe that the ANDA will be approved.

On the legal front, in the trial contesting Teva’s Copaxone patents, last year the District Court found all nine patents to be valid and infringed. Momenta, Sandoz and Mylan have appealed, and the final appellate briefs will be filed over the next several weeks. Based on this timing and prior federal circuit court practice, we expect that all arguments will be heard by the appellate court in the second quarter, with a decision issued in the second half of this year.

Our appellate briefs set out the reasons why we believe several legal errors led to an incorrect result in the District Court on the issues of indefiniteness, enablement and non-infringement. The briefs can be found on the appellate court’s website and I encourage interested investors to read them. While we believe these arguments are compelling, we cannot predict the outcome of the appeal, and again, a decision is expected on the appeal in the second half of this year.

Turning now to our biosimilars program in collaboration with Baxter. In 2012 we increased our headcount to build the infrastructure to work on biosimilars and potential interchangeable biologics. We believe that our in-depth analytics allow us to gain a detailed understanding of the brand product and enable us to guide process development towards the goal of interchangeability.

This quality-by-design approach, coupled with a thorough biocharacterization capability offer us the opportunity to use the FDA’s new regulatory pathway to both reduce the scope of our products, clinical trial requirements relative to traditional BLA and to seek an interchangeability designation. We believe the strategy is aligned with the FDA’s proposed biosimilar guidelines and public comments.

We’ve announced three products in development under the Baxter collaboration. M923, a biosimilar for a branded biologic, indicated for auto immune and inflammatory diseases is our most advanced biosimilar and we are working toward a 2014 IND submission. Upon achievement of IND acceptance, we earn both a technical milestone and an IND milestone.

For M834, also indicated for autoimmune and inflammatory disease and for M511, an oncology antibody, we are working towards achievement of minimum development criteria milestones in 2014.

For the three products, if we achieve these criteria, we could receive a total of up to $26 million in license fees and milestones in 2014. In addition, there are also financial provisions that allow us to earn up to $50 million per product, upon product approval, based upon a substantially reduced clinical program, relative to traditional Phase III requirements.

So although Momenta incurs the bulk of the development costs leading to IND submission, there are opportunities for option fees and milestone payments that can significantly offset these out layers, post IND. Baxter becomes contractually responsible for the cost of further development post IND.

On the biosimilars policy front, in the past few months we have seen FX by brand biologic companies, seeking legislation at the state level to limit or prohibit substitution of biosimilars. We opposed such legislation and we are working with GPHA and at the state level to advocate against these pre-emptive strikes by brand companies to potentially limit consumer and patient access to safe and effective biosimilars in the future.

I’ll now move to our novel drug programs. In our M402 oncology program, we continue to enroll patients in Part A of a two-part Phase 1/2 to proof-of-concept study in advanced metastatic pancreatic cancer. Part A is an open label multiple ascending dose study. We expect dose escalation data from Part A this year.

Our newest program is a sialylated IVIG program. In 2012 we successfully demonstrated the sialylated Fc-linked glycans of IgG antibodies can enhance anti-inflammatory effects in a pre-clinical model, consistent with the findings previously published by Dr. Jeffery Ravetch of the Rockefeller University.

In 2013 our first objective is to investigate the biology of sialylated IVIG to inform our selection of the best indication to consider taking forward into our first clinical programs. Our second objective is to define the specific product or products we would have considered advancing into the clinic.

As a reminder, there are two ways to apply the technology, a sialylated plasma derived IVIG product or a recombinant sialylated Fc product. We are investigating both approaches and expect to have data later this year that will guide our development efforts.

In closing, I’d like to offer a few reflections on 2012, and give you a high level view of my expectations for 2013. This past year was clearly a transition year for the company, but the cash flows that enoxaparin provided and continue to provide has enabled us to put the building blocks in place for long-term growth.

For Momenta 2012 brought significant progress on the M356 regulatory front, saw our oncology on drug in M402 enter the clinic, started the sixth product Baxter collaboration and initiated our IVIG Fc program.

Ten years ago we made an unusual decision for a start-up biotechnology company to develop a generic drug. That decision was the foundation of a three-stage strategy, which still holds true today. The strategy was that cash flows from the generic enoxaparin and Copaxone programs would provide the capital to enable us to build our company without excessive dilutive financing.

The next stage of that strategy was to build a scalable business in biosimilars, which is well underway with our Baxter collaboration. These two parts of our business should provide us both, the resources and the time needed to develop the company’s novel drugs.

That strategy was validated by the approval of enoxaparin in 2010, and since that approval we have earned more than $400 million in product revenues. We expect to replicate that success for generic Copaxone and over the next two years we plan to create significant shareholder values by advancing multiple biosimilar, establishing M402 as a novel, multi targeted oncology candidate and unlocking the promise of sialylated IVIG and sialylated Fc.

As I have said before, this year we are moving dramatically forward. 2013 will be a year of execution with three main programs progressing under our Baxter collaboration. We anticipate that interest will focus on potential M356 regulatory and legal developments, but the work we are doing across all of our programs is setting up Momenta for what we believe will be a very successful future.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that our company foundation is solid and we continue to move forward on a broad portfolio of products. The success of enoxaparin is at the stage for the diversified pipeline we are building and our science keeps advancing. I look forward to keeping you appraised as our programs advance.

Thank you and I’ll now turn the call over to Rick.

Rick Shea

Thanks Craig. Now turning to our financial results, we reported a net loss for the fourth quarter of $17.7 million and this compares to a net loss of $1.3 million for the same quarter last year.

The year-over-year change is primarily driven by lower Sandoz net sales of enoxaparin, due to the loss of exclusivity and the change in product revenue structure from a hybrid profit share royalty in last year’s quarter to a straight royalty in this year’s quarter.

Operating expenses were level over the two comparative quarters. Revenue for the forth quarter totaled $13 million, included approximately $11 million in enoxaparin product revenues and approximately $2 million of R&D collaborative revenues.

Sandoz reported fourth quarter net sales of $85 million for enoxaparin and as Craig said, we are pleased to see an increase in net sales from the third quarter, in which competitive pressures led Sandoz to make significant pricing adjustments. We are hopeful that the fourth quarter’s net sales figure is more indicative of the future run rate for Sandoz enoxaparin sales, but it remains a competitive market and market share and pricing could change.

Turning to R&D collaborative revenues, the $1.9 million reported in the fourth quarter consists of $0.7 million expense reimbursement from Sandoz under our enoxaparin and generic Copaxone collaborations, $0.5 million amortization of the equity premium we received from our 2006 Sandoz collaboration, and $0.7 million amortization of the $33 million up front payment from Baxter.

We expect that the expense reimbursement from Sandoz will continue at the $1 million to $2 million per quarter in 2013, and the amortization of the 2006 Sandoz equity premium and the Baxter upfront payment will be consisting with 2012 quarters.

For operating expenses in 2012 we added to our headcount primarily supporting our biosimilars program, but as well as supporting our novel drug R&D. We now have approximately 250 employees and expect to end 2013 in the 270 to 275 range.

Fourth quarter 2012 R&D expense, including stock based compensations was $21.5 million compared with $21.2 million for the fourth quarter of 2011. However, excluding the purchase of sialylation technology of $4.5 million in Q4 last year, quarterly R&D expense was $16.7 million, so it increased by $4.8 million or 29%.

The major increases included headcount and related expenses of $1 million, contracted research and manufacturing of $2.3 million, lab expense of $0.8 million and depreciation expense of $0.7 million. Our G&A expense for the fourth quarter, including stock comp was $9.4 million, a decrease from $9.7 million in the same quarter last year, primarily due to lower litigation expenses in the second half of 2012.

Now turning to financial guidance, our guidance for 2013, total-operating expenses is unchanged. We expect total-operating expenses, excluding stock compensation and net of collaborative revenues will average approximately $30 million per quarter. For comparison, our fourth quarter 2012 operating expenses of $30.9 million, less stock comp of $3.4 million and collaborative reimbursement revenues of $0.7 million, nets to $26.8 million for the quarter.

We are also continuing to project that 2013 quarterly net cash usage will average approximately $20 million to $24 million or approximately $90 million for the full year. Again for comparison, our unrestricted cash balance decreased from $362 million at September 30 to $341 million at year-end, for a net cash burn for the fourth quarter of $21 million.

Looking beyond 2013, we are managing our net cash burn in 2014 and 2015 by offsetting potential decreases in enoxaparin product revenue, and planned increases in net operating expenses, with anticipated milestone and license payments from Baxter under our biosimilar collaborations.

So this concludes my financial review, and I’ll turn it back to Craig.

Craig Wheeler

Thank you Rick, and we’ll now open the call for questions.

Question-and-Answer Session


Thank you. (Operator Instructions). Our first question comes from the line of Ronny Gal from Sanford Bernstein.

Ronny Gal - Sanford Bernstein

Good morning everybody and thank you for taking my question. I actually have two of them; the first one is regarding the appellate brief and the process of appeal for the Copaxone program. I wasn’t quite sure if you told us that the briefs that are available now or they will be available in the next few days.

And second, while this question is, can you actually add the argument made against you in the enox case around the safe harbor provision to your argument against the manufacturing patent in the Copaxone case?

Craig Wheeler

Thanks Ronnie and let me take the first one. Yes, the initial briefs are available. There will be some final briefs that will come up later, but they are available on the courts, so I would encourage people to look at them.

In terms of our ability to use the manufacturing arguments based on the safe harbor rule they had against us. They are limited in this case, because this is an appeal. So in an appeal case.

Ronny Gal - Sanford Bernstein

You haven’t made it in original, yes.

Craig Wheeler

If you don’t have the original argument, then you cannot raise it and since these rulings went out when we had the original case, we are somewhat limited in terms of what we can argue on appeal.

Ronny Gal - Sanford Bernstein

Got you and second, regarding the monoclonal antibody program, I think that you originally told us that you were hoping to put a couple of programs into the clinic in 2014. It sounds like now you are kind of expecting to get one of them into the clinic in 2014, but you are not quite sure on the second item on the product and the oncology product, is this fair? Is there some sort of things that take a little bit longer? Was that kind of the plan all along?

Craig Wheeler

Yes, no this is consistent with our plan all along. I don’t believe we ever said we are going to put two into 2014. So we had planned for our initial one, which is the one we had been working on longer, when we originally signed the deal for 2014, and then the others will come later than that.

Ronny Gal - Sanford Bernstein

Okay and last not one is, since we are talking about the first program into the clinic, any chance you will be able to get away with only PK/PD on this original drug. Is that your objective or you kind of expect that you will have to use some sort of a longer pre-approval safety trial and longer pre-approval efficacy trial before we can actually get this product approved?

Craig Wheeler

Yes, so that’s a harder one to answer. Of course our objective is to reduce the clinical trials as much as possible and to gain an approval with an interchangeable designation. But I do expect that these first products, there will be longer discussions about the data that are being provided where we are beginning to undertake trials, and so it’s hard to say exactly what those trials will be.

But I don’t expect these first products to go through as quickly as we would hope the later ones would, because we are submitting quite a bit of data, and our experience with enoxaparin tells us it takes time to process that with the agency. So its highly likely we’ll still be having those (inaudible) trials in these first programs, but its still a little early to tell.

Ronny Gal - Sanford Bernstein

Thank you very much.

Craig Wheeler

Sure, thank you Ron.


Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Sumant Kulkarni from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch.

Sumant Kulkarni - Bank of America/Merrill Lynch

Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. First one is a relatively simple one. On enoxaparin could you give us a sense of what the true discounting is right now and how that could evolve?

Craig Wheeler

Yes, its hard for me to give you any specifics on the discounting, because it varies from account to account, but I can tell that what we’ve seen or Sandoz has seen in the last quarter is much more stabilization of prices. And so what we are signaling there is that if it continues, then we can be more confident of the revenue predictions we are giving. What we are seeing is a dramatic, dramatic discounting overall.

For your own math purposes, our market share stayed relatively constant, and so you can go back and calculate the averages if you’d like to, but we haven’t seen that much decline in market share. But the prices have been eroded on average quite a bit over that course of the last year.

Sumant Kulkarni - Bank of America/Merrill Lynch

And on Copaxone, could you give us an update on what your recent interactions have been with the FDA on the ANDA, and how important is your actually gaining the 180 day exclusivity on the product, how important is that with respect to your future financial performance I guess?

Craig Wheeler

Sure. So first, I mean I can’t comment on specific FDA interactions. I would have to say that our interactions are continuing and they are positive. Obviously, we are under that new domain in the FDA where they give a complete response letters. You don’t get that specific feedback on parts of the application that you used to get.

And then I think the 180-day, obviously we would love to have it. We are well beyond the traditional timeline that you would that 180 days, so we will have to appeal for some of the exceptions that the FDA has and we’ll see if they give it to us.

We are not currently planning our future on having the 180 days. Obviously our hope is that we’d be the first out there and have that long tail of being the only generic out there. But I think even with competition in the marketplace from Mylan that we would expect, that this would be a profitable product for us, Mylan and for some time.

Sumant Kulkarni - Bank of America/Merrill Lynch

And the innovator on Copaxone has done some recent gene chip studies that they plan to publish at some point, that show some differences between up-regulation and down-regulation based on the generic versus the brand. Have you done that kind of study on your product versus the brand and how should we think about that?

Craig Wheeler

Well, I think there’s two things. One, they certainly have been touting that. I would love to see the generics that they are talking about, that they did first. It’s because as we had said in the past, there are certainly generics on the markets and other places that do not show equivalence to Copaxone and we agree with them on that, but they are certainly not looking at our product, and so I don’t know what product they are using there.

We haven’t commented specifically on the science that we submitted to the FDA for competitive reasons, but I will say we have gone I guess with the preponderance of the data approach in terms of showing the biology comparison of these compounds and so we certainly believe we’ve put a pretty compelling package together for the agency.

Sumant Kulkarni - Bank of America/Merrill Lynch

Sure. And the last one on your IND submission potential in 2014, how much time could elapse between the submission of the IND and getting an acceptance from the FDA? And when does the milestone actually come in to Momenta?

Craig Wheeler

So, the milestone is actually paid at the achievement of the milestone. So there is actually a very short – they have a period that is very short to be able to pay us once the milestone technically is achieved. So it will be pretty much concurrent depending on the quarter, where it came in the quarter.

But there’s two milestones that would come in there. One would be the technical milestone and the other would be IND, and then beyond that then we would imagine we would start the trial very quickly.

Sumant Kulkarni - Bank of America/Merrill Lynch

Right. And on the FDA itself, like when you submit the IND versus when that could actually be accepted for filing, is it a relatively quick process or could it take months?

Craig Wheeler

No, I expect that would be a relatively quick process. I mean remember that these IND’s are going to be submitted following the long discussions with the FDA about the package that they are submitting using their series of Type 1, Type 4 meetings.

Sumant Kulkarni - Bank of America/Merrill Lynch

Okay. Thank you

Craig Wheeler



Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Ami Fadia from UBS.

Ami Fadia - UBS

Good morning, thanks. I had one question about Copaxone. Could you give us a sense of are you incrementally more positive than before with respect to whether or not the FDA is closer to concluding its review of the application? And also Mylan has suggested that they expect an approval in 2013. Would you have similar visibility into your application and if you could comment on that. Thank you.

Craig Wheeler

Sure. So, I think it’s hard for me to say I’m incrementally more positive. I think what I’ve been signaling for the last nine months is that we are quite positive about the FDA and are actual having on the product.

It is and I will tell you, we have a lot of experience with enoxaparin. It is hard to predict specifically when these approvals are coming. There is a lot that is going on in the agency around these, and that’s just the nature of these complex applications.

So it certainly is within the realm of possibility that we could see something this year, but I’m not going to go out and predict, and I will comment only that Mylan has said a lot of things during the course of their applications, and so you are going to have to use your own judgment in terms of what guidance they are giving you.

Ami Fadia – UBS

Thank you.

Craig Wheeler



Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Eric Smith from Cowan & Company.

Eric Schmidt - Cowen & Co.

Well, good morning. Just a little bit of a follow-on question on the biosimilars program. It seems the FDA’s been kind of slow in giving guidance, at least publicly on interchangeability. Craig, I wondering if you are getting what you need behind the scenes to figure out best how to move forward and how to resource this program?

Craig Wheeler

Yes, I suspect that what you’ll see when they ultimately do come out with guidelines is that they are going to probably put in their other guidelines. It’s a kind of a no when you see it kind of thing, where they are going to let the science lead the way.

The way we are viewing it is, the FDA has basically left it up to companies to propose what is needed to reduce clinical trials, to propose what they would need to show biosimilarities and the FDA’s reacting to it. And so our approach, and it really is kind of sticking to our guns in terms of where the approach is. It’s to actually use our characterization and therefore our reverse engineering and guiding of processes to actually make something, which we believe, is interchangeable and then to actually create that.

As I talked about Copaxone and that preponderance of the evidence biologic package that shows that these things are really behaving in an equivalent way biologically. So that’s kind of our strategy that we’ll put together, the biocharacterization, that product characterization and the quality that is one process to be able to make our argument, and that’s one where everything we’ve seen so far is that’s the right direction.

But there is a long road ahead in terms of those discussions as we’ve limited our prior products. But so far, it seems to us that the agency is leaving it back to the applicants, to be able to give them the data they need to be able to make those decisions.

Eric Schmidt - Cowen & Co.

Okay, fair enough, and then a question on Copaxone. It looks like Teva’s going to move forward with the once every three week formulation, assuming that’s approved in maybe 2014 and you also have your generic on the market. Would you envision being able to compete for the entirety of the Copaxone market or do you think that once every three-week is enough differentiation to prevent substantial market share gains.

Craig Wheeler

Yes, I actually – first, we do see them going forward. They have to obviously get it approved first. So they never did a head-to-head on that program. So to see exactly how that program works in the regulatory environment will be interesting.

But lets assume that you get it approved, we continue to believe that where the price increases have been taken, with the burden of costs that the insurers and the patients are seeing on this program, that there will be heavy, heavy pressure from the payers to use more of a cost effective generic program.

So sure, there will be some penetration by three times a week, but I’m thinking that’s enough for solving a generic competition, I don’t see it. So I think we’ll still have a good opportunity with the product.

Eric Schmidt - Cowen & Co.

And then just a quick last question for Rick. It looks like by my math you recorded 12.7% royalties on the $85 million and end user sales in the quarter. Was there some sort of an adjustment that pumped you up above 12%?

Rick Shea

That’s correct Eric. Usually every quarter there is some adjustments that are made, that kind of filtered through the results positive and negative. So our actual product revenues don’t always correlate precisely with the royalty rate.

Eric Schmidt - Cowen & Co.



(Operator Instructions). Our next question comes from the line of Whitney Ijem from Canaccord.

Whitney Ijem – Canaccord

Hi guys, thanks for taking the questions; a few quick ones. On the Baxter biosimilar program, I think they have the option to sort of opt into three others. Is there any progress there or any hints as to what indications you guys are exploring there?

Craig Wheeler

Sure. Well, I can say we are very actively working with Baxter to choose those other three programs, because it’s important for a number of reasons, including being able to source the brand over multiple batches, to be able to understand what’s in there. So we are working very actively on a subset of programs.

When specifically those will be chosen, its hard to say and it’s conceivable that we could see more of those programs chosen this year, but we are still working to try to refine what we would want to work on, but we are very actively working with them on those selections.

Whitney Ijem – Canaccord

Okay. You haven’t commented on specific indications you might be looking at now?

Craig Wheeler

We have not, we have not, and I think that’s still something that Baxter is narrowing down in terms of where their focus is going to be.

Whitney Ijem – Canaccord

Okay, great. And then moving to 402, what data will you present from Part A? Will it be just that you’ve achieved the dose selection and that you are moving on or will you present some [PK] (ph) and safety data at that point?

Craig Wheeler

If we obviously can’t talk about the data that we are going to be presenting, because it’s embargo before any of the posters are up, but you can anticipate that. Right now we are still in the middle of dose escalation.

So once we get that dose escalation done, it will probably give a pretty comprehensive summary of the trial and what we are seeing in it. But that’s still a way off, because – and as I said before, it’s a good thing that we are still on dose escalation. That means that we are able to escalate the dose, which is a good thing in cancer, but we are still in the new of the process right now. And so I would anticipate once we have all of the data in hand on that Phase I trial, that it will give a pretty comprehensive view of what we’re seeing.

Whitney Ijem – Canaccord

Great. Thank you.

Craig Wheeler



Thank you and I see no additional questions. I would like to turn the conference back to Mr. Craig Wheeler for his concluding remarks.

Craig Wheeler

Sure. Very briefly, once again thank you very much for joining us on the call. We look forward to continuing to update you on what’s a very busy year for us and thanks for joining us and we’ll talk to you next quarter.


Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude our question-and-answer session in today’s Momenta Pharmaceutical, first quarter and full year 2012 financial results conference call. Thank you for your participation and have a wonderful day. You may disconnect your lines at this time.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to All other use is prohibited.


If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: Thank you!