Analysis of the EAP, page-412

Yes, had a quick look and agree it Pluristem 3D patents don't seem to cover bone marrow derived stem cells.

All good discussion and I'm trying not to be pulled into a deep dive as I don't have time, atm. But also as @dplane pointed out, a superficial dive in this area is almost a complete waste of time as it is too complex and even the experts won't agree. We can just be assured that the good prof didn't just make an ASX announcement of starting manufacturing next year using 3D if he thought he was infringing on a whole bunch of competitor patents.

Of course, everyone should still do their DD, but as I mentioned before, I only know what I don't know in this area and what I know is that I could not figure out who is infringing on who, if it came down to that. You would literally need to take the issue to some expert patent lawyers in this field for a paid opinion. That would be closest you could get to some kind of assurance. I know companies occasionally provide this opinion in their prospectus or as part of their ongoing risk management. Does anyone know if MSB ever provided such a statement?