AFR Exclusive, page-49

Phil

There is very little difference in ownership laws relating to real property or intellectual property. Recognising this close relationship helps with understanding Anagenics’ current position.

If someone either buys a property or spends money establishing one they are the legal owner. Any builder/inventor employed in developing the property (eg Halasz) has no ownership rights to determine how the property is used.

Legal proof of a property’s ownership is demonstrated through a patent or a certificate of title registered in the owner’s name.

Owners are required to meet the ongoing expenses associated with maintaining the property. They benefit from any increase in its value, which can be transferred though sale.

Owners have the sole right of determining whether to benefit from the use of the property themselves or to rent (licence) its use to others for an agreed income. If someone does not wish to accept the rental/licensing agreement because they don’t want to interact with the landlord then their only option is to look elsewhere.

If ownership of the property changes the terms of the rental/licensing agreement remain unchanged. This holds also if the owner were to die, in which case the property then is transferred intact to their beneficiaries or creditors.

Similar to a property investor Anagenics owns a property portfolio, the exclusive licensee of the complete portfolio is Lyramid, and any owners of Lyramid are legally committed to meeting the terms of the licensing agreement.

Splitting the portfolio would require the drafting of a new agreement.

I feel I should add that I spent fifteen years with an involvement in the drafting of patents and licensing agreements for the protection and commercialisation of scientific intellectual property.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

T7