Bayer is going to get royalties for the life cycle of the product if it's successful, that's not full ownership, they licensed out the global rights to another company.You do understand that Bayer still owns it?
That is why they can license it out to other with ressource they might not have them self.
So Bayer isn't seeing a loss of profitability just because they license it out.
To take one of the worlds biggest players within diabetes drugs is Novo Nordisk, they still work with other companies and universities, is that also a sign of lack of profitability?
Again, I'm not saying collaboration and licensing is a bad thing in anyway, but once you get past the pre-clinical stages of research these huge companies are largely going to keep their bigger potential products under their own banner unless they require the synergistic collaboration with another firm that specializes or has IP they require for development. That, or they don't see big opportunity and would rather give it to another company to monetize it rather then just shelve it.
Please tell me how this applies to Bayer giving IP rights to a complete startup? HopeMed has nothing in terms of IP or infrastructure that would lead you to believe a company like Bayer would be better off giving them the rights unless it has something to do with Chinese health/governmental agency approvals.