biota wins a us patent for treatment of cancer, page-145

There is a lot of misinformation posted on patents and how patents are awarded.

I suggest heading to www.ipaustralia.gov.au for some information.

Perhaps download the Patent Act 1990 and read it: http://corrigan.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/

Patent is a minefield. A patent is a right granted for any device, substance, method or process which is new, inventive and useful.

First it must be new. For it to be new, it must not have been published. Publication can be as simple as talking about it to a group of friends in a pub!

There must be a novelty or inventive step. What is a novelty or an inventive step can be gleaned from court cases challenging awarded patents (ie infringement and the likes).

I speculate that the BCRX application must be "wanting" either in respect "inventive step" or there may be a "prior art".

What I find most interesting is BTA downplaying the patent granted to BTA as an APPARENT MISTAKE". What is perhaps the most outrageous statement is stating that it is a matter between BCRX and USPTO. After the Commissioner had granted a patent to BTA, the only way to challenge it is for BCRX taking it to court for a judicial review where the Commissioner and BTA is allowed to make legal representations defending the patent.

Peter Cook as a CEO of a company that depends on its intellectual properties (Patents) ought to know better. Shareholders could not help but suspect the statement was made to create doubt about the value of the granted patent. And obviously it put a foot on the share price!