June 24 - MSB % of portfolio AND + or - %, page-72

" ....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)
Yellow is what you wrote including you quoting me (yes your underlining for emphasis helps me see what you have an issue with I'm not trying to fight with you just discuss) blue is (mine) just so I can refer back to specific place(s).

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.
Look I'd concede your rebuttal of my opinion would have been strong IF the patent examiner had left the bit you circled in green (re IL2) in your previous post as a standalone description of what was being granted a patent as a potency assay or as a component thereof, in a potency assay related patent - but it doesn't.

See the "A composition comprising mesenchymal precursor or stem cells and their use" patent application I was referring to (at the blue) relates specifically to, I quote the first para - (my underlining)

"TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present disclosure relates to improved cellular compositions and potency assays for obtaining the same, such compositions and assays may be suitable for use in treating various inflammatory disorders"



So that patent application is specifically about potency assays - if MSB did get that patent granted and if the definition of a mesenchymal precursor cell was broad enough to pick up iPSCs in its language (an iPSC could be a sort of unnatural mesenchymal precursor after all)- the patent might indeed be a problem for a company like CYP.


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.
The words in the context you found them in the B2 patent are working but as part of a description of limiting - (they would be effective in stopping a competitor to MSB that did have all the aspects of that claim 1 - that is that would have been true for each of the AND statements including 1(b) (iv) which was the bit you circled in green) - what was being granted as a patent.

They aren't working to validate a part of a potency assay.

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?
I'm not denying holding CYP (nor certainly am I bragging about it) - I declare when I'm asked to declare. Its far easier to see I hold CYP that it is to see for instance if swing traders are reducing or adding when they praise or criticise and post only in places they hold.

There is a basis for my statement (in my opinion) - And I said "perhaps" I didn't assert it as fact.

Having read your posts for years now I think if you were the patent examiner you'd have informed yourself of the background context of the patent application concerned potency assays well enough to have gotten a pretty informed view of how the substance of the patent application in front of you had been treated by the FDA - I think you as the patent examiner would know the potency assay has not been confirmed by the FDA - it would only require looking at some MSB announcements. So that's some basis in my opinion.

For additional basis I did point to the comment on Silvius slide where the FDA and the patents are mentioned together such that additional patent time might be obtainable - so Silviu suggested a linkage I re-suggest as some basis for my speculative opinion.

The third basis was the difference between claim 16, present and absent, in the WPO and US patent applications claims as currently standing.


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.
You did not say the US patent you were referencing would block CYP.