Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Proxy Form , page-104

re: Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Pro... I'll have a look thanks, Southoz

Given the general sentiment on this forum over the past year has ultimately been driven by technical analysis it has been difficult to share objective POV's relating to the fundamental aspects of the company and the industry in which it operates.

We can often share information or raise the topic of innovative, transformative or disruptive technologies, (which I appreciate) but we never really get the opportunity to expand on the objectives which may be quite relevant should OBJ / partner development programs be progressing along these paths.

If indeed OBJ are involved in the development of anything that may be considered to be an industry game changer (which I believe is certainly possible in terms of potential applications) then it would be quite naive for investors to assume regulatory bodies like the FDA will be a walk in the park - I'll be the first to admit that I imagine it would be quite the opposite.

When I first invested in OBJ a few years back one of my first thoughts in regards to the Dermaportation technology being refered to as a technology which is capable of teleporting drugs into the body without any physical contact to the skin, I thought to myself, now how would one package this up for the FDA?

I appreciate that you have more experience in this area in terms of study/clinical data that may be required by regulatory agencies, but I assume for anything which creates a new market category, new guidance and test methologies among other time consuming formalities must also be established by the regulatory agencies before any marketing approvals may be granted. On this note I imagine that pharmaceutical development programs that incorporate OBJ technology are going to be a lucky dip in terms of expected timelines. With regards to the commercialisation of any pharma products, 1 week, 1 year, 5 years or 10 years away, is really only a guessing game at this stage, however our orginal FMCG partner and GSK are 5 and 6 years respectively in collaboration with OBJ now, so initial milestone payments could very well be triggered at any given time now imo.

We can however note that the company have become silent on 'fabric care' over the past year, and I imagine the regulatory barriers associated to this product category wouldn't be very stringent.

Either way I'm expecting something to happen before the AGM in order for the company to receive +75% s/holder vote to pass Res 3. I continue to have full confidence in our board but I'm not really willing to pass this resolution without some indication that our vote will be in the best interest of all loyal stakeholders.
__________

Hi Surges,

The following has been adapted from something I posted on the PNO threads a few weeks ago which may still be quite relevant today, imo. I didn't bother adding any links but all information speculated here is quite easy to find.

Perhaps the grant funding previously announced from Commercialisation Australia for (coincidentally) $984,500 claiming to already be awarded to PNO's collaboration partner, Proteomics International for undertaking a larger scale testing of what our good friend above, Southoz, intimately refers to as, dried cows blood" with another "pharmaceutical partner" some simply refer to as, Merck has been frozen by our Federal Government, and as a result perhaps someone else is raising approximately $993,000?

When said funds are raised then maybe existing IP and licensing developments can remain on track with a speculated, "EMD Millipore", often refered to as the multi-billion dollar, Merck Millipore who coincidentally are also collaborating with Proteomics International for validation of biomarkers with what appears to be, yes you guessed it, "dried cows blood" or more appropriately termed as, plasma proteins.

It's worth a closer look, imo.

Licensing of intellectual property is an inherent part of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical business. Very few technologies are commercialized without the licensing of intellectual property rights. Universities and emerging biotechnology companies often require the assistance of larger companies (so-called "big pharma") to fund and help navigate the regulatory approval process. Big pharma may look to emerging biotechnology companies for research and new marketable small and large molecules. Even products completely developed at in-house research facilities may require inlicensing of technology for the production of commercial quantities. The emergence of genetic testing to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of disease has resulted in analytical laboratories engaging in new rounds of patent licensing with the holders of intellectual property rights to the isolated genes. - Source