Claudia Jimenez, Tigenix's senior director of investor relations and corporate communicatio at the time, must have had a bad day in 2017 when she told BioWorld, that Tigenix “did not need the IP from Mesoblast to launch.” She said Tigenix licensed the IP to “add an extra layer of protection.” “We just wanted to be absolutely certain in the future that we would not encounter a problem,” she said, noting that Cx601 is protected not by the Mesoblast patent but by Tigenix’s own composition-of-matter patents. “It’s very fine wording,” she said, stressing that the patents “are important but not needed to launch. We wanted to avoid any future disputes or conflicts with Mesoblast in the future.” https://www.bioworld.com/topics/84-bioworld
Not needed to launch, but perhaps in the future that extra layer could be important... hmm... As Lopez was also telling you between the lines of his post, TiGenix founded in 2000 and merged with Cellerix (founded in 2004) in 2011 had its Cx601 history going back to Spain, but signed an agreement with Lonza in 2015 to use Walkersville to manufacture Cx601 for the US P3 trial. Didn't Lonza and Mesoblast establish a strategic partnership in 2011? Could it be that Mesoblast developed a way for the manufacgturing process to be more efficient, and Lonza suggested that to TiGenix who then may have said that although we don't need it right now, we can launch the product using our own patents, to commercialise and expand in the US, it would be good to have since we are already sharing the same CDMO? Just a theory which could be far off.
Suddenly I come to realise that The Mandalorian is not just some Sci-Fi stuff that Disney bought from Lucas, it is also a stem cell documentary, quoting MSB's patent application closing lines:
@otherperspective Just to get this right, we are now not talking about ALL MSCs or MPLSCs anymore, but now SI owns the patents to the cryopreservation process? I thought we had buried that whole patent thing years ago, since, as you said, "I am not a patent lawyer by the way" - and neither am I. Yet you keep making the same claim because you "have consulted with an expert in forming my opinion." Fantastic. That changes everything. No details as to that person's involvement and understanding of the patents involved here. I stood behind a heart surgeon once when ordering coffee and donuts and couldn't help but hearing bits and pieces. Was thinking about sharing my views on medical forums now on how to perform a quadruple bypass.
I am still not a patent lawyer and am too old to become one. That's why I am only responding to such claims, don't start off with them. At this stage, it is two different opposing opinions until the matter is brought in front of a court. Then we get our definite answer. Until then I would be careful making and constantly repeating such claims without making clear to your followers that this is your opinion only, based on what you have heard and how you understand it and shockingly is also in line with your financial interest of being a shareholder in MSB.
Don't get me wrong, I respect you as a poster and admire your ability to connect the dots. That being said, I don't appreciate your condescending turds, even if wrapped in compliments such as "reasonably successful results" and "market cap is justified." Lets first distinguish that Cynata's trial is NOT in SR-aGvHD but in High Risk aGvHD. Only a few letters difference perhaps, but at the same time also a failed Osiris trial in (aGvHD). Not to mention that the treatment starts earlier, before onset SR-aGvHD, which is something (if you believe the likes of Jaques Galipeau) could play a vital role.
@Bazsa it's a shame that you keep playing down the results, then again, nothign shocks me anymore after your "glass of water" comparison. Isn't there a possibility that MSCs could potentially perform better if aGvHD is more severe in patients? I thought to have read something in ASX releases... And in a world-first iPSC-MSC trial, where like others, fear of cancer could have still played a role in patient selection, do you honestly believe that they would enrole patients that could be healed with a "glass of water". I note, Cynata's P1 trial was about as unfiltered as it gets, willing to take patients including Grade D/4, no difference. They didn't acquire knowledge of failed P3 trials to heavily screen the patients to select only the ones that will likely respond to treatment based on past history of CYP-001 - because there was none. Let us wait for the P2 trial results and judge then I suggest, since that will hopefully allow us to form a better opinion on if it works or not - in adults I should add.
I could be wrong, but it appears that some posters do hope for people to die during clinical trials, unless the trial is run by their investment. Sad, but so be it.
CYP Price at posting:
30.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)