Analysis of the EAP, page-123

I am not a biotech lawyer (don't even have a technical background, but you don't need one as a patent litigator necessarily), and haven't read any of MSB's patents, so take what I say with a large grain of salt.

But it's not necessarily (or even at all) the cell itself that is being patented (where the cell already exists before it's extracted from the donor).

Instead, it's all of the things surrounding the cell that would be patentable. The extraction method, the location or type of cell that is being extracted (bone marrow, versus umbilical, versus dental pulp), the culture in which they are grown, the process for growing them, the process for storing them, the modifications that you make to them, and most importantly, what you can use them for and to do (like to treat ARDS, for example), are each and all potentially patentable things. That's the "invention" part of the product here. Taking something that's always been there, but changing it slightly (or markedly) and doing something completely novel with it that no one else has thought of before to do something useful.