That doesn't explain a few things, though. Even with licensed compounds, some company has to put them through clinical trials. How could a company with only a couple of million dollars afford to own the sole license that another company spent hundreds of millions / billions on? Even more so, what motivation does the company which spent all the money have to license it out to a single company? You'd think with their billions they would just do it themselves, instead of relying on their profits to be paid back.

Specifically, a number of the low-networth companies I was referring to was actively developing new drugs, allegedly in accordance with new FDA protocols for accelerated drug approval. Specifically, with all the latest technology, drugs can be passed at an accelerated (and significantly cheaper) rate, if the effects of the drug are proven with certain related biomarkers, as well as side effects.

The points you're making seem to fit in with the older / more widely known model based on some the research I've been doing. I'm trying out more information on these newer models of FDA approval. From what I understand, the changes in FDA policies is solely due to the advancement in technology and the sheer number of drugs for the many multitudes of different conditions that exist. A large part of it seems to be that they've begun to realize how impractical it is for a company to have to spend billions to get a new drug to the market, thus, they have began to revise the clinical procedure requirements.

However this is just what I've found on my initial research over the past week, which is why I posted here to look for more insight.