On 19 October 2026, Dhampur Bio Organics (DBO), an Indian-listed sugar producer, told the National Stock Exchange that it had executed a Technology Licensing Agreement with Switzerland’s Planetary SA for the “exclusive production of Mycoprotein in India.” The filing puts three numbers on the deal: a 10% royalty on after-tax revenue, paid quarterly by DBO to Planetary; an initial term of 10 years; and renewal in 5-year steps by mutual written agreement. It puts none on capacity, tonnage, investment or plant location.
In September we noted that Planetary finances its own Swiss plant with debt and licenses abroad, and that the India collaboration was then only a non-binding term sheet with no disclosed figures. The “watch” item at the end of that piece was a definitive agreement that would let the sub-$1/kg claim be checked. A definitive agreement has now arrived. The claim still cannot be checked.
From term sheet to licence: what changed
| January 2026 | 19 October 2026 | |
|---|---|---|
| Instrument | Non-binding term sheet “to explore an exclusive arrangement” (DBO Q3 FY26 results disclosure) | Technology Licensing Agreement, executed 19 October 2026 |
| Royalty | Not disclosed | 10% of after-tax revenue (as defined in the agreement), quarterly, DBO to Planetary |
| Term | Not disclosed | 10 years, renewable in 5-year steps |
| Capacity / tonnage | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Investment | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Plant site | Production beside DBO’s sugarcane processing site (AgFunderNews) | “Approved facility”; no location named |
| Feedstock | “Sugar side streams” (AgFunderNews) | Sugar and molasses |
| Offtake | Not disclosed | Planetary is “technology provider and offtaker”; the commercialisation and offtake agreement is yet to be executed |
| Joint venture | Not disclosed | A JV for commercialisation and offtake in India is contemplated; the JV agreement is yet to be executed |
Read down the right-hand column and the pattern is clear. Everything that is now public is the licence mechanics. Everything that determines whether a tonne of mycoprotein is ever made or sold sits in two agreements the filing says are still to come.
The money flows the filing does disclose
Three payments are named, and the filing lists obligations on each side.
The royalty. DBO pays 10% of after-tax revenue, defined in the agreement, each quarter. “After-tax revenue” is how the filing words the base, and it adds “as defined in this Agreement” without reproducing the definition. Depending on what the agreement deducts, the effective rate could differ from 10% of sales. The definition is the first thing a reader would need and the one thing the public text omits.
The launch fee. Planetary charges DBO a one-time fee for engineering, launch, installation, commissioning, process training and handover support on an open-book basis, “as mutually agreed.” No figure or cap appears, so the amount is open-ended in the public record.
The IT setup fee. DBO also pays Planetary for configuring Planetary’s “Data Platform.” The filing’s list of DBO obligations includes access-control, audit and reporting duties alongside confidentiality. Read together, the structure suggests Planetary retains visibility into how the plant runs. That is our inference from those obligation headings. The filing does not say what data flows or who owns it.
Practical consequence: a licensee in any similar deal should model the royalty on the contract’s own revenue definition, not on headline sales, and should treat an open-book launch fee as a variable capital cost until a cap is agreed. For readers tracking Planetary, the royalty is a revenue line that scales with a partner’s sales, while its costs sit with the partner.
Who carries what
The filing divides the roles plainly. DBO constructs and operates the mycoprotein production infrastructure and is the manufacturer and supplier. Planetary is the technology provider and the offtaker. Green Queen’s 23 October report says the same, adding that the companies plan a joint venture for further commercialisation and offtake.
Two consequences follow, one from the text and one from our reading of it.
From the text: capital for the Indian plant is DBO’s. The filing says DBO will build and operate, and the only Planetary payments disclosed run from DBO to Planetary. This matches the pattern in Planetary’s April funding coverage, where AgFunderNews describes the Swiss company licensing its BioBlocks platform to agricultural partners through co-location, and in its January coverage, where Brandes said Planetary financed its own installations with non-dilutive debt.
From our reading: if Planetary is also the buyer of the output, part of DBO’s revenue will be money Planetary itself pays, and a tenth of that comes back to Planetary as a royalty. That circularity is not unusual in licensing with an offtake, but it makes the unsigned offtake agreement the most important document in the structure. Its price, volume and take-or-pay terms would set DBO’s revenue, which sets the royalty base, which determines whether the sub-$1/kg cost claim is something DBO can earn a margin at.
The sub-$1/kg claim, again
AgFunderNews reported in January that Planetary aims to produce industrial-scale mycoprotein in India for less than $1 per kilo, and Protein Production Technology International quoted CEO David Brandes that the target “is not based on assumptions, but rather on firsthand production data.” Green Queen’s October report repeats the below-$1 aim and adds a reported 30% cost reduction when exporting to Western markets, attributed to Brandes without a stated base or comparison.
Nothing in the NSE filing carries a cost per kilogram. There is no capacity to divide a capital figure by, no capital figure to divide, and no operating cost. The royalty adds a further consideration: a 10% revenue share plus a launch fee are costs the licensee bears, and it is not stated whether the sub-$1/kg figure is measured before or after them. We treated the same shape of claim in our analysis of Paleo’s 613-fold cost cut; the principle is that a target without its base constrains nothing.
Practical consequence: until the offtake price is public, treat $1/kg as a production-cost aspiration, and ask whether a buyer’s contract price will sit above or below it. A seller who earns a 10% royalty and a launch fee has different incentives from a buyer paying for tonnes.
Where the sources disagree
- Feedstock. The January AgFunderNews article refers to “sugar side streams” and does not mention molasses. The October filing and Green Queen name sugar and molasses. This is a difference of detail, not a contradiction, but the later description is the one DBO signed.
- The timeline. Green Queen says talks began in January. The filing’s own history is more precise: DBO disclosed a non-binding term sheet on 21 January 2026, and the TLA was executed on 19 October 2026, about nine months later.
The counter-argument
The case that this is a more solid step than we have given it credit for is real. A signed, exclusive licence with a 10-year term and a 5-year renewal option is a legal commitment by a listed company that is bound by securities disclosure rules. A filing like this is a summary, not the contract. The omitted fields may sit in schedules, in commercial-in-confidence clauses, or in agreements not yet drafted. DBO also describes the deal as forward integration into its existing sugar business, which gives it a reason to proceed.
On that reading the absence of capacity and investment is simply the usual stage-gating of a phased project: license first, size the plant later. We cannot rule that out. What the public record cannot support is any specific claim about volume, cost or timing, in either direction.
What we could not establish
- Plant capacity, tonnage and investment. The filing lists them as not disclosed, and Green Queen confirms neither is given.
- The plant’s location. The filing refers only to the “approved facility.”
- The definition of “after-tax revenue” and so the effective royalty rate.
- The launch fee and IT setup fee amounts.
- The effective date of the TLA, and so the date from which the 10-year term runs.
- Price, volume and exclusivity of the offtake, and the JV’s ownership split, because neither agreement is executed.
- Whether the sub-$1/kg target is stated before or after royalty and fees.
- The origin of the 30% export cost reduction attributed to Brandes.
What to watch
- The offtake and JV agreements. Each requires a further DBO disclosure if it is material; those filings are a better tracker than trade press.
- A capacity or capex figure in DBO’s quarterly results or investor presentation.
- A named site and regulatory approvals for the “approved facility.”
- Planetary’s second closing and reporting of the licence in its own accounts, the first view of what a 10% royalty is worth to it.
- Any Indian-market product launch, which would be the first test of price against the claim.