Glenmark Pharma shares in focus after subsidiary licences cancer drug to AbbVie for $700 million upfront

Time of India

3 days ago

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
shares will be in focus on Friday after its step-down, wholly owned subsidiary,
Ichnos Glenmark Innovation
(IGI), signed an exclusive global licensing agreement with US-based AbbVie for its experimental cancer drug, ISB 2001.
ISB 2001, currently in
Phase 1 clinical trials
for relapsed or refractory
multiple myeloma
, will be jointly developed under the agreement. AbbVie will hold exclusive rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialise the drug in North America, Europe, Japan, and China. Glenmark will retain rights for emerging markets, including Asia (excluding Japan and China), Latin America, Russia/CIS, the Middle East, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.
Under the agreement, IGI Therapeutics SA — a subsidiary of Ichnos Glenmark Innovation — will receive a $700 million upfront payment and is eligible for up to $1.225 billion in milestone payments, along with tiered, double-digit
royalties on net sales
.
Also Read:
Brokerages initiate coverage on Delhivery, 7 other stocks; up to 33% upside seen
The US FDA granted ISB 2001 orphan drug designation in July 2023 and fast-track status in May 2025 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
Live Events
"Multispecifics like trispecific antibodies represent a new frontier in immuno-oncology," said Roopal Thakkar, EVP and CSO at AbbVie. "This partnership reflects our commitment to advancing novel therapies for patients with multiple myeloma, where unmet needs remain."
Cyril Konto, MD, President and CEO of IGI, said, 'This agreement marks a defining milestone in IGI's journey. Our partnership with AbbVie accelerates ISB 2001's path to patients and strengthens our focus on the next generation of BEAT®-enabled assets.'
Also Read:
Vodafone Idea slides 57% in a year; analysts warn of further downside below Rs 6.30
(
Disclaimer
: Recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)