CYP Price Target post MSB FDA approval., page-224

Lets not forget all those fools at Fujifilm CDI, Ncardia, Axol Bioscience, ReproCELL, Promega, Miltenyi Biotec, Stemcell Technologies, Takara Bio, Thermo Fisher Scientific, DefiniGEN, Evotec, etc, who have also gravely misunderstood the scope of MSB's IP remit in their commercial pathways. Let alone all those dozens in autologous derived treatments too.

I am a Mesoblast holder, but would be the first to admit MSB's IP moat does not undoubtedly protect it from IPSC induced MSC treatments. Its the usual FUD against CYP from an obsessed MSB holder. You will no doubt know Pfeifer, but I will remind others "In May 2009, Osiris Therapeutics (United States) completed the first major industry-sponsored phase III trial of allogeneic, marrow-derived MSCs for treatment of steroid-refractory GvHD (NCT00366145). ". SI (and Plodge) can huff and puff.....this stuff is not new and IP protection does have time limits and is naturally limited in scope to give some room for development and variation for the good of the wider societal benefits, whilst protecting individual business investments. And more importantly the degree of patentability on perfectly naturally occurring biological processes, amplified, mimicked, or enhanced, is somewhat limited.

https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what-are-patents/what-biological-inventions-can-be-patented

As a general matter, inventions involving biological materials may only be patented if they have been isolated from their natural state and altered by method of intervention, of course - if the isolated cell is not sufficiently different from its naturally occurring counterpart, this may still be a bar to patentability. Expansion of autologous MSC cells by culture is a flimsy imposition, by argument, on MSB's IP, and wouldn't likely stand up legally and accordingly IPSC's, an entirely differentiated means of production with its own adept described differences and advantages, similar. Many MSB holders maybe under the mistaken belief they can just call IP foul on all MSC treatments. Not at all if they understand the background to international IP protection on ultimately naturally occurring biological processes, that can only be patented where there is interruption, differentiation or means of manufacture. And if those methods of differentiation or production are strikingly different, which in IPSC's they significantly are, then the overlap of infringement of course less arguable.

(I am of course not teaching you to suck eggs Pfeifer, but posting this in reposte to the usual FUD purveyor)