Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

Ladies and gentlemen, good day, and welcome to the Q2 FY ‘25 Earnings Conference Call of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

Thank you. Good evening, and a warm welcome to our 2nd Quarter FY ‘25 Earnings Call.

Welcome, and thank you for joining us for this Earnings Call after the Announcement Of Financial Results for the 2nd Quarter FY ‘25. Our Q2 Financials are already with you.

Thank you, Murali.

Thank you, Kirti.

Thank you, Abhay.

Thank you very much. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. The first question is from Damayanti Kerai from HSBC. Please go head.

My first question is on R&D spend. So, you mentioned delay in some clinical trials has led to lower R&D spend in first half. And then you mentioned the 7% to 8% range for the full year. So, do you think there will be a significant uptick in the second half R&D spend? And are you seeing pickup in clinical trials, which are currently underway?

Yes, I think the new guidance is based on our reassessment of the money that we will need to spend during the second half of the year. And we understand that for the first half, the spend is 6%. For us to reach 7% or 8%, it needs to go up by a corresponding number so that the annual number is reaching the guidance.

Sir, but any further delay or slow pickup in trials could keep your R&D lower compared to like your anticipated level?

That is true.

My second question is on the litigation which you mentioned in your press release for Leqselvi. So, any time line to look at the next update on the IP litigation front? And then you can also please provide some update on your expectation for the launch time line for that product.

So, we are awaiting the court judgment. And I really can’t put time to it, so we do not know, hopefully soon. And as far as readiness for launch is concerned, post the judgment and depending on what the judgment is, we would be ready to launch the product in the market.

But have you done sufficient preparation to launch immediately once the court ruling comes favorably? Or will it take some time?

It will be a couple of weeks, not definitely a couple of months. So, to that extent, we will be ready.

The next question is from Anubhav Agarwal from UBS. Please go ahead.

Just first question is on Leqselvi litigation itself. I am just trying to understand the scope of this litigation. So, based on my reading, the litigation is mainly on 335 patent, where the expiry of this patent is December ‘26, which is like 2 years from now. So, two subparts to this question. One is, is the scope of litigation only for 2 years or the scope of litigation is beyond the 2 years as well? That’s one part of my question. And the second part of the question is that in terms of worst-case outcome, what is the worst outcome here that does Sun have to pay a higher royalty here? Or you may not be able to launch the drug itself for 2 years?

So, as we understand the litigation, I think is the scope of the litigation is correct. I think the patent which they are using to litigate has an expiry date. And up to that is the worst-case situation is that in case if we get an unfavorable judgment and then even on appeal if we lose, then that is the time to which our potential launch gets delayed.

And Dilip bhai, on the second part of the question, so is this more the worst case on the extent of royalty that we need to pay with 10%, 20%? Or is it like do not launch at all for 2 years?

No. I think generally, royalty in such a situation would be subject to a settlement. It cannot be arbitrarily defined as to what would be the royalty and whether with a royalty, we can launch or not. It’s a binary outcome.

And the second question was on the ILUMYA. Today, when you are in the Medicare Part B market, the medical benefit product, what percentage of prescriptions are you missing already because you do not have approval of psoriatic arthritis. So, I am just trying to understand, let’s say, a year down the line, if the Phase-

So, typically, I mean, if I look at the other competitors in the market and their data, and also from conversations with doctors, the split between psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis is somewhere, and you can use this as a ballpark figure, so don’t hold me to it, it’s like a 70-30. So, the 30% is the market you are roughly kept around with. And this is data that you can also validate in the public domain of the others.

Abhay, that’s correct. But my question was that, if ILUMYA already being prescribed on off-label basis for those patients as well, so is the incremental gain not 30%? Or is it lower? Or your sense is that benchmark or a heuristic benchmark of 30% is still valid for Sun as well?

I mean, Anubhav, how do you expect me to comment on any off-label use.

I think if you say, we have no prescription from rheumatologists. And if a dermatologist is prescribing for psoriatic arthritis, we wouldn’t know. But most likely in the U.S. context, they wouldn’t prescribe.

And Anubhav, you need to also appreciate that if there are other products available whose label mentions the psoriatic arthritis, then the motivation of the doctor to use another product off-label is also very low.

My confusion was only on the Medicare Part B, where none of the other ILs are approved. That’s where my question was.

I mean, I think I have answered your question to the best of my knowledge, Anubhav.

The next question is from Neha Manpuria from Bank of America. Please go ahead.

My first question is on Winlevi. Abhay sir, given the change that we had in strategy, you talked about it a few quarters back. If I look at the IQVIA data, obviously, the trend seems to be not reflecting that change. Are we seeing an improvement in Winlevi sales quarter-on-quarter? Is it in line with our expectation?

So, we did expect the fall in prescription post our changes in strategy, which is what I think Dilip sir explained on the previous call as well. The focus was on generating a more profitable prescription. I think

And are we seeing that quarter-on-quarter, month-on-month improvement in terms of prescriptions?

Yes, I do see that, yes.

And when do you think we get to, let’s say, a sustainable level of prescription that you would be happy about? Would it take us a couple of quarters, a couple of years? When do you think we get there?

Honestly, I am already happy with the traction that we are seeing. And if I am able to grow the revenues with a more profitable prescription, then I am already happy. But having said that, I mean, the idea is to continue to grow prescriptions in whichever product we market, not only in the U.S. but in any other geography.

And my second question is on the emerging market business. If you could give us some color on what the focus markets are for us in the emerging market and how we are thinking about growth in that business because it does tend to be fairly volatile. I understand, sir, currency is a big factor there. But otherwise, which are the key focus markets and how we should think about growth in the EM.

No, I think we’ve already shared the key markets like Brazil, Romania, South Africa, Russia and Mexico. Yes, I think those are there with you. And the focus would be to find a way to grow in this market. But at the same point of time, we have sales in many other geographies and many other markets. And all of them together make the emerging market business.

And sir, the focus in these markets would be growth over profitability. I mean, because each of them are separate markets, how should we think about the growth versus profitability in these markets because there’s a fairly large mix of markets?

The way our budgeting process works is that every country is expected to grow both top line as well as bottom line, irrespective of the size of the market. The focus from the business point of view would be that the corporate office, the business development team as well as the priority for R&D resources would be allocated to these geographies before they are available to the other geographies. So, that’s the essential difference.

Next question is from Bino Pathiparampil from Elara Capital. Please go ahead.

If I heard rightly, in the opening remarks, it was said that the lenalidomide sales in Q2 were higher than Q1. Is that correct? And could you also give some color Y-o-Y?

It was also higher year-over-year.

On the specialty side, this Fibromun which we have in-licensed recently, I believe it’s in registration trials. Any time line regarding completion of those trials?

No. I think we’ve also indicated that the trial is managed by the principle from whom we have licensed the product, and they are a public company. So, until they, what you call, disclose what is their time line for filing. However, we have seen before we licensed the clinical outcome data and we feel that it’s an exciting opportunity for patients who are currently significantly undertreated for this disease.

And sir, for Utreglutide, you were planning to start the Phase-II in the second half of this year. Is that on track? Have you started it?

No, I think if you see our disclosure, what we’ve said is that it will move to the first half of next year.

Next question is from Surya Narayan Patra from PhillipCapital. Please go ahead.

Sir, first question is on the R&D spend. While we have become a bit aggressive about adding more and more specialty pipelines, we had indicated about 8% to 10% kind of R&D spend, and now we are cutting down to 7%, 8% kind of for the current year. So, how should one think whether it is because of the savings that is coming from the in-house capability, clinical capability, what you have indicated that you are building it up.

So, what your question is whether it’s an intentional delay or whether it’s the reason why -- because of any other reason, the --

Yes. I mean, whether it is the saving that is coming from the in-house clinical capabilities, what you’re building it up. So, that has brought in this kind of saving, or it is something else?

No. I think there is also a delay in commissioning some of the studies. So, it’s not only in-house saving from managing the studies. It’s still a long time before we get to know whether there is any significant saving because of the change in the, what you call, organizational capability.

And second question is on the U.S. sales growth. See, interestingly, sir, after the many, many quarters, what we are seeing that, overall, the U.S. sales growth is higher than the Global Specialty sales growth.

We have not shared the U.S. specialties sales.

No. I mean, since U.S. is the majority of the Global Specialty. So, if I reframe that, U.S. sales growth is higher than the Global Specialty growth. The reverse trend used to be the kind of a trend. So, what is driving this U.S. business? Because the base business of plain-vanilla generic is obviously facing its own challenges. So, what is driving? Whether it is something coming from the Taro side? Or what is driving the forces, if you can just indicate and your outlook for the base business also?

I think the reason is pretty obvious. Our major products, whether it is ILUMYA, Winlevi, ODOMZO or CEQUA, have done well. And the team continues to perform and deliver. That’s the reason.

See, my understanding, they’re trying to reconstruct specialty and generic separately. In the past, they were doing because Taro numbers were public. So, they were able to reconstruct. So, no, I think we need to internally debate and understand whether we want to share more information than what we are already sharing.

Just one last update, sir. This Chinese Ilumetri launch, whether we have seen any meaningful progress there? Any influence that we can see to our ROW sales?

I think we are very happy with the kind of traction Ilumetri has received in a relatively short period of time after launching the product in China. And we expect it to become a more meaningful product as time progresses.

The next question is from Shashank Krishnakumar from Emkay Global. Please go ahead.

My first question was on the domestic piece. So, when we are alluding to volume- led growth, would there be a meaningful difference in terms of volume growth across town classes that you’re seeing in our portfolio? Would volume growth be meaningfully higher in metros and Tier 1 towns for us as opposed to, say, class 2 to 4 towns and rural markets?

So, broadly, it will be difficult to share whether it’s higher in Tier 1, Tier 2 cities compared to some metros. But what I can tell you, our volume growth is quite strong, and the volume growth for the industry is on MAT September ‘24 basis is 0.7% and we are 5.2%. So, strong, and I see that is across the businesses.

My second question was on SCD-044. So, I understand that Amgen has received an approval for Otezla for pediatric use. And while this is an age group where there is no other approved option right now. So, is that a patient population group that we could also potentially target?

Yes. I think we are waiting for the Phase-II data to come and then we’ll decide because many times, the agency also requires that on approval that you have to do a pediatric study to get the product approved for pediatric patients and psoriasis as well as atopic dermatitis are both conditions for which there is a sizable number of pediatric patients. So, in this case, there is a business case, but we have to take a decision looking at the Phase-II data. But in any case, most of the people that develop the product first for the adult population and then go back to the pediatric.

Next question is from Anubhav Agarwal from UBS. Please go ahead.

I have two questions. One is on other expenses. So, in this quarter, other expenses are pretty high. Just trying to understand, is there any one-off here? For example, when you in-licensed Fibromun, have you paid some one-off milestone, which is included in other expenses or any other one-off there in other expense?

There is no one-off in the other expense in the current quarter.

So, what explains this is almost Rs. 450 crores increase in quarter?

It is mainly driven by the higher selling and distribution expenses in U.S. and EM and certain other geographies.

So, there would also be a ramp-up cost for launching Leqselvi, which are coming to the expenses for the first time.

But would you say, Dilip bhai, that this is the new base of other expense for us?

I mean, generally, we don’t guide for expenses, but I think our focus would be to run the business most efficiently.

Second question is on Leqselvi, actually not just on Leqselvi drug, but on the alopecia areata market. So, just trying to understand that there are 2 existing drugs in the market and the ramp-up has been slow in last 2 years of the market formation. So, out of the 2 factors, which I can think of, just trying to understand which is the bigger factor, which is leading to a slower ramp up of the market? One is insurance access or insurance coverage as factor one. And second is doctor’s lack of willingness to prescribe this category because of the black box warning on the JAK inhibitor class. So, out of these 2 factors or maybe third or fourth factor, which you guys can help think about that. Because when I see the 2 drugs on IQVIA, I only see less than 15,000 patients being treated in total on this category. And that’s what I meant by a slow ramp-up here.

See, in the U.S., access always builds up gradually. It is not that the day you launch, you will get unrestricted full access across all the payer groups. Some of them have a new-to-market block. So, I think you should also look at access as a continuum rather than event upon launch.

But Abhay, is access the only reason why the --

See, one of the products also has multiple indications. It also depends on where a company may or may not focus. I cannot speak for anybody else. But our focus will be on growing both awareness as well as usage of our product in that indication. So, waiting to get to market and then we will see whether we can grow the market as well.

One just clarity on the other expense question which I asked. Let’s say, when you include the milestone payment that you paid for Fibromun, where would you capture it? Would it be captured in the R&D expense? Or would it be captured in the other expenses?

No, it’s not part of other expenses. It is part of a balance sheet item.

Part of the balance sheet item. But have you paid anything for it so far?

We’ve provided for it based on the contract.

Next question is from Vivek Agarwal from Citigroup. Please go ahead.

So, my question is related to your obesity molecule, GL0034, right? You presented Phase-I data in June 2023. And now you post the Phase-II trials in 2025, right? So, it’s more than 2 years and the gap seems to be substantial, right? So, just trying to understand why there is a big gap of 2 years, either you lack confidence in

No, I think we are very excited. I don’t know whether you kept track. But otherwise, we’ve been consistently presenting the clinical outcome data, both in healthy subjects as well as in patients. And I think, we believe that we have a very, what I would call, best-in-class product. There is a certain amount of delay in terms of starting the large Phase-II study. But we hope that we will be able to make up during the conduct of the study.

And sir, is it also fair to understand that your R&D spend are expected to move up substantially once you start the Phase-II trial of this particular molecule? Or irrespective of this particular molecule, should we expect R&D spend to go up substantially and to go up in the 8%, 9% kind of range?

Yes, we will cover it in our guidance.

Next question is from Saion Mukherjee.

Sir, my first question is the intangible assets under development that we see has risen quite a lot in 6 months. So, can you explain what is driving this?

So, this increase in the intangible asset development, as I just said now, is for the Fibromun product which we have contracted licensed from Philogen.

And my second question is on the psoriatic arthritis indication for ILUMYA. Would this require approaching rheumatologists separately? I mean, do you need to make any additional investments for that indication?

So, we will definitely have to cover the rheumatologists. We are still trying to figure out how.

But is it possible, sir, to sort of license out or work with some existing player in that segment?

I don’t think it will be necessary. I think on our own, we’ll be able to do a good job.

Next question is from Rahul Jeewani from IIFL Securities. Please go head.

Sir, the sequential growth, which we saw in the U.S. business, so apart from specialty and Revlimid quarter-on-quarter growth, was there any other driver which led to the growth in the U.S. business on a sequential basis?

I think in more ways than one, I have answered the question. But the last way I can attempt is year-on-year, the generic business without Revlimid has shown growth. But quarter-on-quarter, it’s a small decline.

So, I was just trying to check that whether there were any one-off NBO opportunities sitting for us in the U.S. generic business this quarter. So, that wasn’t the case, I believe.

I don’t think so.

And the second question which I had was on the domestic business. So, can you talk about your rep expansion plans for the domestic market given that, let’s say, a year back, we had added almost 1000 new reps to the domestic business. So, what are your rep expansion plans going forward?

I think I shared in the past is like we have expanded our field force. And today, we have 14,000 people on the ground who are promoting product to the doctors. So, about future plans, we can’t comment it. But whatever expansion we have done in the past, I am thinking that it is helping us to grow faster than the market, yes.

Sure, sir. So, sir, just a follow-up on that. So, do you think that the existing field force, which we have, that can continue this volume-led outperformance for us in the domestic market? Or let’s say, when do you anticipate the next round of expansion happening on the rep side, even if you are not willing to call out the exact number as such?

No, that’s what I said. We can’t disclose our strategic plan when we want to expand in the business. These are the calls we take during our budgets every year.

The next question is from Madhav from Fidelity. Please go ahead.

Yes. Just two questions. The first one was on the PSA indication. In case we get the favorable Phase-III data in H2 CY ‘25, what could be the earliest launch for the PSA indication for ILUMYA?

So, the attempt always is that whether it’s a launch of a new product or a new indication, you can only maximize your return if you’re able to launch immediately after receiving it. So, we will always attempt to do it as soon as we get the approval.

Sir, my question was that in case the Phase-III data is favorable, what’s the time gap between the Phase-III data readout and the approval? Is it like 6 months or 12 months before that happens?

When the FDA will approve.

In case the Phase-III is favorable?

We will launch as soon as we get approval in the new indication. And like I said, for another product which was asked, it will be a matter of a few weeks and not a few months.

And the second question was on the staff cost. In the first half, if I have it right, it grew by 3%, 4% only year-over-year. So, do we expect that sort of trend to continue for the rest of the year? Or do we expect some acceleration in the staff cost spending?

As such, we do not expect any material movement in the staff costs.

The next question is from Naresh Suthar from SBI Life Insurance Company. Please go ahead.

Sir, when Taro used to announce results, the R&D cost was around $60 million, $65 million at that time. And we have seen so many quarters, they have not done good in terms of the U.S. sales, which is predominantly derma portfolio. So, is there any thought process wherein we want to reduce the R&D significantly for Taro?

So, is your question, is the R&D to be reduced for Taro?

Right, correct.

Now we have to look at the overall R&D investment. We can’t look at separately. We can’t run 2 separate businesses. It’s now part of Sun. So, we have to look at the holistic R&D capability and R&D spend.

So, my question was also related to whether the reduction in the R&D guidance includes some part of this rationalization in Taro R&D because the portfolio itself was not growing good, and it was seeing competition every quarter before the takeover.

I don’t think your assessment and our understanding is correct. Our understanding is that the new product that Taro used to file, and launch justified the money that was spent. But there was a steep price cut across other products, which was made up by this, but the overall rate of decline was significantly faster compared to the other products that we had in our portfolio.

Next question is from Neha Manpuria from Bank of America. Please go ahead.

My first question is on M&A. Given that that’s been a core part of our strategy in building out the specialty pipeline so far, I just wanted to get your sense on the environment today for specialty assets in the U.S. We’ve heard about the biotech funding crunch, big pharma sort of looking at assets given they sort of constrain the R&D. Is it more difficult to get specialty assets for acquisition? And is that the reason for us becoming more aggressive in terms of building our own clinical capabilities? I just wanted to understand the long- term pipeline strategy for the specialty business.

So, I think the buildup of the clinical capability is more a function of at which stage we are able to or actually decide to license a product. If we decide to license a product which is, let’s say, completed Phase- III, then we don’t need a big asset, I mean, organization. We license a product in Phase-II or earlier, then we will need an organization which can bring the product to market from Phase-II. And our sense is that it’s better for us to also look at a mix of products which are close to market or also products that we can develop on our own.

And sir, is it becoming more difficult for us to get, let’s say, near commercial products for acquisition in the existing focus areas that we have, in ophtha and derma and oncology. Is that the sense that you get when you look at the market, M&A market?

I mean, actually, I have no historical context. So, I can’t compare that 10 years back it was easier and now it is difficult. But I don’t see a situation where if we are interested in an asset. And since our area of focus is relatively narrow, not many competing potential bidders.

And my second question is on ILUMYA. Because ILUMYA prescription traction continues to be very good. Obviously, we had skepticism about biosimilars impacting that. We have another biosimilar launch

I mean, many factors go into it. But at the end of the day, it’s about execution on the strategy.

And you don’t think another biosimilar in one of the other large products sort of impacts ILUMYA prescription growth?

So, to be perfectly honest, I mean, we are, in the overall market, a relatively small player as compared to the big ones. So, I think any biosimilar will go after the big fish, and not necessarily the space that we are playing. So, I guess to that extent, I mean, we are relatively insulated as compared to the bigger products.

One more issue, you need to keep in mind is that the overall penetration of biologics in the market is also relatively low. So, with biosimilars and we also expect penetration to go up.

Thank you. Next question is from Gagan Thareja from ASK investment managers. Please go ahead.

So, the first question is Taro comparable quarter last year would have been consolidated at 80% and this year it’s fully consolidated. Would that roughly add $25 million to $30 million of sales even if Taro sales wouldn’t have grown year-on-year simply because of the additional consolidation?

So, as part of the transaction, Taro has become part of our overall U.S. sales. Earlier also what they were getting separately Taro.

They were giving separate number.

Not since it is no more public company part of the Sun, we are just showing the overall net sales of the US business, which includes Taro.

No, I get that but in in-principal, I am simply talking about the arithmetic, 20% extra consolidation would have added to sales, assuming that there is no precipitous drop in Taro sales at all.

No, there is no impact on the top line post-consolidation because as a subsidiary, were capturing the top line, at the end were providing for minority interest in the profit.

Second question is on Nidlegy™ and Illumetri, ILUMYA in China, is it possible to give some insight into how these have evolved and developed?

No, we do not give country specific sales detail. Broadly, overall looking at the offtake as well as the projections we are getting from our partner in China, we think that the product is doing quite well.

Sir, final one, on the post-grant review which went in favor of Incyte on patent 335, on the legal document pertaining to that, they seem to indicate that they would be looking for a higher loyalty post if there is an approval for your product view, do you see a circumstance where royalty payments will be higher than what you have previously anticipated and therefore the overall profitability on the product could be different from an initial base case?

You have access to information which I don’t have. So, because I have not seen any disclosure from Incyte which says that they are expecting a higher royalty.

No, sir, this is just the transcript of the District Court New Jersey hearing on this matter in July?

Now, since the matter is sub-judice at this point of time, we are not responding to specific questions.

Thank you. Next question is from Saion Mukherjee from Nomura. Please go ahead.

Sir, I remember some time back, you had mentioned about the regulatory approval on some of your complex products on the generic side in the US, there were uncertainties in terms of the regulatory guidelines which were delaying things. In the recent past, we have seen some complex generics getting approved.

I personally don’t recall any such comment or disclosure in any of our calls.

We have indicated that there are products for which there is lack of clarity from a regulatory point of view. I think for a specific product there would be guidances which will help. And we see an effort by the agency to work towards clarifying and sharing specific guidances so that industry has a greater visibility on the process to follow for approval of those products.

Sir, would you like to comment how does impact Sun, should be therefore mean that the chances of you sort of crossing the hurdle on the regulatory front is much more now?

No, I think it is very difficult to give a non-specific response, but our view is that anything which has greater clarity for industry is always helpful for bringing a generic product to the market early.

And sir, my second question, if you can respond like on the GLP-1 opportunity both from the regulated and from an emerging market perspective, how should we think about that and Sun’s preparedness to address that opportunity?

No, I think we are very excited. The only issue is how fast we can bring the product to market and what kind of clinical outcome benefit we are able to show while the product is in registration. That is what will ultimately help us in terms of working towards getting a fair share of the product globally.

And the emerging market opportunity because your presence have a footprint in most of the markets, the key markets, so you expect that to unfold over the next say 2-3 years for you, much ahead of the regulated market?

Currently, the trial is being done in such a way that we will get approval in regulated and emerging market in a phased manner, but starting with the regulated market. If there is a change in the strategy, we will share that with you, but as on today that is the approach. And also another thing which I am sure you are aware is that some of the current GLP-1’s will start losing patent protection in emerging market much earlier than the regulated.

Thank you. Next question is from Ankush Mahajan from Axis Securities. Please go ahead.

Sir, I am just looking at a very good set of number for the specialty, the 7.5% growth on Q- on-Q also, so if I said take two reasons like one is the US market and other is other market, so can we say that the other market is going faster for the specialty and still there is a scope that we are looking for the new geographies to enter for the specialty?

You are setting my goals for next year.

So, I think he is trying to understand the split between US and non-US.

I can only speak on the US business and I think there, as I said earlier, most of our key products we have grown Levulan on as you know, this quarter is always a softer quarter. So, I believe that Q3, even that product will come up to where it should be because that is traditionally a big quarter for that product. So, I think I am personally confident that we can continue to grow our specialty business in the US.

Thank you. Next question is from Anubhav Agarwal from UBS. Please go ahead.

Just last question from me, just on the ramp up of the specialty portfolio. So, we have derma products, then we added derma-oncology products, so just trying to understand how you are thinking about the other oncology products which are not derma-onco and what about ophthalmics? So, that is one set of questions?

No, I think our approach to acquisition is that we need to find a way to manage that business much better than the current owner and it needs to help us strategically, help us grow our topline and bottomline in a strategic kind of way. So, that will continue to remain our priority and focus. I don’t want to take a view about the size of the product or the size of the market, because I think it is better for us to play in a market in which we compete for products which are not aggressively competed by big pharma. So, we have a relatively small subset because we are a small company, and we need to recognize and reflect that in our action and plan. And your question as to whether we will get into the pure oncology business, I think as on today that is not the intention because the moment we get into, let us say, first line breast cancer or head and neck cancer or anything, we then end up competing with all large companies in the world, and that is where we will not be able to compete.

And how about Ophthalmology? So, we have dry eye drug, but what about the other areas in the Ophthalmology?

No, I think we continue to look at opportunities which can enhance our basket in Ophthalmology, and we are very disciplined about our acquisition approaches that we don’t get emotionally committed to any product. So, unless and until it makes business sense, we don’t approve this. We have not, unfortunately, been able to identify something which is both exciting and something that we think will help us create long-term value.

So, just very naive question, but in Dermatology you think, let us say, with the current pipeline that you have it and the molecules that you are thinking about it, can this be ultimately not putting a timeline so that if you stay in derma and oncology or derma-oncology segment, can you be like 3X-4X of the size what you are today, just staying in this derma and oncology therapy?

You are talking of my desire or what we wish to disclose because I think as a company we don’t make long-term projections, but I think if we are playing in this field, it is with a view to become successful and

Dilip bhai, the question was not on timeline actually, I put it wrongly, sorry. The question was simply that does the derma and derma-oncology in terms of molecules that you want to target that you do not want to, let us say, compete directly with big pharma, does the space has so much potential that you can keep launching and becoming 3x-4x eventually that was your sense of the question?

I think if you look at our current pipeline, we have an oral product which we are developing for Phase-II for psoriasis, same product we are also developing for atopic dermatitis. So, these are all fairly large market with potential to do much better than what and augment our relationship with the doctors in the market.

Thank you. Next question is from Sudarshan Padmanabhan from JM Financial. Please go ahead.

Sir, my question is a little bit more on the housekeeping side. The first half we have seen our gross margin significantly higher than expectation. I just wanted to know, would we be looking at say for the full year, given that the specialty is doing well, the gross margins will trend more towards 79%-80% as compared to what we initially thought?

So, we are not giving any specific guidance on gross margins.

I think even in the past, people have said whether when your EBITDA will reach 30%. I think our focus is to find a way to do our business in a way whereby our EBITDA and profitability improves, but that is not the intention, the intention is to grow both topline and bottom-line and run business more efficiently.

And with the R&D spend probably coming back in the second-half, should we be looking at more or less margins at around 28%, which is what you initially guided for, or do we see that the R&D spend can be still a little slower giving some kind of fillip to the margins in second half?

So, I think we are not guided for any margins as such. So, we will refrain to comment anything based on the margins for the H2.

Thank you very much. That was the last question in queue. I would now like to hand the conference back to Dr. Abhishek Sharma for closing comments.

Thank you everyone for joining us at this late hour. If any of your questions have remained unanswered, you can reach out to me or Investor Relations team. Thank you and good evening. Thank you.

Thank you very much. On behalf of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, that concludes this conference. Thank you for joining us, ladies and gentlemen, you may now disconnect your lines.