PTX Media related, page-1026

Yes I don’t think prescient will take any risks with patents. If successful collaboration with TF we will have a “novel” process as you pointed out.

That’s a very good point in regards to CP-M, and as you say it’s an unknown. It could play out in a number of different ways. If TF only care about producing a successful cell type using non-viral methods I guess that is their main concern. In terms of efficacy that would be Prescient’s main concern after the R&D period, in which they would look to incorporate CP-M into the “new” Omnicar cell type and test it in the clinic, happy days.

However if this “automated, closed cell therapy” manufacturing process does not allow for CP-M to be just “slotted in” as it has been described as being able to do, perhaps they are looking to include it as a “standard” for this new cell type, therefore any company to use this new non-viral method will also have CP-M incorporated without a choice.
The second scenario would be ideal as PTX would receive royalties in some regard. However I suspect it won’t play out like that and I think the first scenario is more likely.

I could let my imagination run wild thinking of other scenarios, but I think this would be a great question to ask Steven in tomorrows webinar although I don’t expect he would be willing to comment on the matter. I wouldn’t be surprised if Reach markets avoid any questions relating to TF