For General Information, page-3017

The key is the mechanism (bio markers, modes of action) patents as you mention, whether they get them granted, and how enforceable they are. This is crucial as you point out. It would be great to have an MOU patent on ATL1102 targeting CD49d for instance (and any disease that uses this activity of the drug), but it is another question whether the patent can prove novelty and an inventive step over other existing ATL1102 patents including the expired composition of matter patent (my example above could be far too simple though).

The ring-fencing (patenting) of further platform applications is particularly important now given the possibility that ANP could partner on DMD (possibly just in the US), so further indications would be where the meat in the sandwich would be in terms of future profit/valuation goes. This is what happened to Neuren, where trofinetide development was partnered and consequently future revenues of trofinetide were diluted with the gain being positive cash flow now to develop NZD-2591. NZD-2591 now makes up to 90% of the $100 plus unrisked valuation of Neuren according to broker reports.

We could also become an originator of our own future drugs.

The interesting situation with ATL1102 is that nearly all the “evergreening” of drugs in the market, now and historically, with new methods of use/treatment patents has been on approved drugs that have had solid sales. ANP is in the unusual position of evergreening a drug that has never come to market. Not to say that is a limitation (although it makes trial paths more laborious at the moment as safety/toxicity greater than 6 months still has to have a box ticked).

The potential Orphan Drug Exclusivity (7 years + another 6 months for being a paediatric treatment in the US) is a Fort Knox ring-fence though.