" ....Why does that matter - well the US patent office is apparently not granting claims over IL2Ralpha yet, the WO still has them in, perhaps I put to you because the US patent examiner is not keen on giving a patent over something that is not yet proven to work. (See above slide "Upon FDA approval patent term may be extended up to 5 years to 2037"). Me again - both the FDA and the US PTO have in my opinion a duty to behave like professionals and not grant either patents for stuff that hasn't been shown to work yet on the evidence presented or in the FDA's case BLAs for products that haven't satisfied the requirements of having at least one adequate and well controlled trial and a validated potency assay." (underlining added for emphasis)
I think the USPTO doesn't see the problem you 'put' to MSB holders as if it were a genuine problem - the reason I think that is because the USPTO, by granting the patent I referenced, has acted as if there's no. such. problem.
If I were to accept your logic (which I don't), the US patent examiner must think it's 'something that's proven to work', contrary to your assertion.
I think you had no basis at all for that statement about MSB patent application examiners 'keenness'. It was made up, IMO. Why you, a CYP holder, would make it up, who knows?
And contrary to your bald unsupported assertion, I think the USPTO have granted Mesoblast Ltd's assignors patent exclusive rights in the US based on MSCs capable of inhibiting IL2Ra expression i.e. USPTO was apparently "granting claims over IL2Ralpha yet".
MSB holders need to know when CYP holders come here to HC:MSB & post material which is demonstrablyfactuallyuntrue. Whether you admit it, or not.
Oh, and you imply in the post above that I said the US patent I was referencing would 'block CYP'? Show me where I said that. Otherwise retract the implication.
As a matter of fact, I just don't care about CYP. At all.
GLTA(LT)H of Mesoblast
MSB Price at posting:
$1.05 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)