Tada - There is no such thing as non-dilutive licensing or financing. It gets talked about that way because there is no dilution by increase of outstanding shares. There are other ways to dilute or in other words, lessen the payout to each share without increasing the number of shares. If you sell $1 billion worth of a product one year at a 10% net, you have $100 million to split among say, 200 million shares or $0.50/share. If you license off the production and sales of that $1 billion for a 10% net royalty, you now only receive 10% of the 10% or $10 million among 200 million shares or $0.05/share. Without the license, you have to pay the costs of production and sales but we are talking net numbers so that is already looked after. That, I would call substantial dilution! This is a simplification while there are other things to consider like upfront payments or milestone payments, etc. but is just to show that there is dilution. With Hepalink, there are milestone payments but no upfront payments. The money they paid to RVX was for shares and warrants that they received full value for on top of the license. 

I am not saying that there should not be license agreements as RVX isn't a manufacturer and does not have the sales and promotional infrastructure. I am only pointing out that there is always dilution. Nobody is going to give RVX anything for nothing. Discussion here centers mostly on possible market value while anywhere that there is a license agreement, RVX shareholder's portion of net will be much smaller.