Considering the claims, page-57

For what it's worth, my read is that put plainly the Agila patent was utterly, completely, and obviously entirely derivative of previous patents. My read is that the previous patents are owned by Phosphagenics. Since the patent application failed to present any novel element, and in fact misrepresented the prior art in order to bolster its own claims, it was rejected, and by my read scolded Agila for trying to pull off a fraud on the patent office (my words). In my opinion this finding supports a favorable outcome of the arbitration, and additionally affirms that Phosphagenics' patent portfolio is robust and not so easily hijacked.