going to copy Pfeifers post here as even if you are answering a question on MSB threads, the zealots report you for cross promotion when they don't like the answer.
https://fujifilmcdi.com/news-even↑ts/news-item/cellular-dynamics-partners-with-ips-academia-japan-inc-to-in-license-seminal-ips-cell-patent-portfolio/
Originally posted by Khazar10:
No need to explain your self. It is a valid question and that's what HotCopper is there for.
I don't think you can say that Mesoblast has exclusive rights to X to start with, instead they have exclusive rights to their MesoX and OsiriX, which allows them to the license the rights for the use of their X in a certain disease target.
Otherwise, if a patent in a specific area gives you exclusive rights to the whole field, we'd all be driving a Carl Benz car today and using Alecander Graham Bell telephones.
Besides, at this stage they can't even agree on an exact definition of Mesenchymal Stem Cells:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/call-to-stop-using-the-term-mesenchymal-stem-cell-64862
https://www.stemcell.com/mesenchymal-cells-lp.html
Processes in this industry as you guys have mentioned before need to be evolved in order to keep up to date.
Leaving that aside, the patents covering the manufacturing process are different as you said. Cynata's (licensed from WARF) approach is unique as it involves MCAs, and is therefore different from the many processes out there:
While early IP covered production of MCAs from PSCs using OP9 Feeder cells, changed to MSCs to MCAs (still using mouse feeder layers), there is now exclusively licenced IP covering production of MSCs from MCAs and MCAs from PSCs under defined conditions in the absence of non-human components (Tenascin-C).One of them being this one here:"Methods and materials for hematoendothelial differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells under defined conditions" (patent family: US14206778 & patent application US20140273211A1), which is as per asx announcement dated 07/12/17 "owned by the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) and is amongst the intellectual property licensed exclusively from WARF to Cynata".
I stated the above in one of my earlier posts and in order to not cross-promote, I will leave it at that.
In our case, we will (that is my opinion anyway and we should find out in about 60 days) get third party validation of our technology by a company that is already selling iPS derived MSCs:
https://fujifilmcdi.com/products-services/icell-products/icell-mesenchymal-stem-cells/
Given your question, it would seem silly for FujiFilm to pay for a product that
a) they have been selling for years (iPS derived MSCs, derived using a different process though)
b) someone like MSB could have "first dibs" because they filed a patent in that field and therefore would have the rights to everything (btw, "CDI is the first company worldwide licensed to access the key patents surrounding iPSC technology from the two stem cell pioneers, Dr. Yamanaka and Dr. James A. Thomson, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison" https://fujifilmcdi.com/news-events/news-item/cellular-dynamics-partners-with-ips-academia-japan-inc-to-in-license-seminal-ips-cell-patent-portfolio/)
c) they see a reasonable chance for a key patent challenge for that may jeopardise their plans, including the building of a new manufacturing plant.
All up, I would say that based on what I have read, our WARFX are different to your MesoX and OsiriX, and therefore the patents shouldn't be an issue.
I also remember that there has been a key patent challenge for Osiris in Australia covering the administration of MSCs (a few months before Mesoblast acquired it), which Osiris successfully defended ("all claims to the patent will be maintained in full").
Point is, IP is complex and confusing as you say, and that is exactly why there is a whole industry behind it making sure that patents are filed, renewed and updated regularly. It gets reviewed by multiple parties, including potential business partners.
Anyways, that's my 2 cent.
(20min delay)