Thank you for sharing. Finally, we might see this potential IP issue put in the spotlight, that your fellow shareholders have been going on about since at least 2015.
Last week I posted:
"May I also give some food for thought here:
MSB has been granted Orphan Drug Designation in aGvHD. I don't believe such designation can be limited to children only.
Shouldn't the MSB lawyers be calling CYP now due to market exclusivity now that Ryoncil has been approved?
Same, same - but different therapy?"
Please tell SI to put it at the top of his agenda - after reaching an agreement with the FDA and conducting a P3 trial to show survival benefits in adults with SR-aGvHD ("who failed other biologics").
If no action is taken, one (MSB holders) could of course argue that - until approved - CYP001 is in no competition with Ryoncil. At the same time, with the discussed charge per treatment of $1,000,000, you wouldn't want to forgot 60 patients (+ in a P3) to a trial of CYP001 if Cynata decides to take it to a P3 if needed, would you?
Others (CYP holders) will continue arguing that the manufacturingnprocess is different, subsequently the final product (therapy) is different and therefore MSB's IP has not been "violated", plus of course SR-aGvHD is not the same as HR-aGvHD.
Where does this leave us now? We keep going around in circles for the foreseeable future?
Of course it will.
(20min delay)