Yes I did read the report, but it didn't quite leave me feeling...

Yes I did read the report, but it didn't quite leave me feeling 100% satisfied, so I've also spent time reading the actual patents themselves. Not that I can pretend to comprehend the full extent of these documents but I am left with the impression that RAC really have quite a strong IP position and it also gave me an appreciation for the work that Garner, Rothman, etc. must have put in earlier on in the RAC story (2011 and onwards).

If I can summarise my understanding now it would be as follows...

The original (expired) patent covered the Bisantrene molecule itself. Since then however, Race have submitted and/or been granted patents on:

• (in earlier patents) formulation, administration, dosing, etc. of Zantrene to treat breast cancer, ovarian cancer, AML and childhood acute leukaemias. Importantly 4 out of 6 of these earlier patents have been granted.
• (in later patents) other indications that were not in the original patents to cover Zantrene usage in - ccRCC, Melanoma and MRD - including combinations with other drugs.
• techniques that allow manufacture of Zantrene to FDA/GMP standards.

This would all seem pretty bullet-proof to me in regards to what we need to have covered for protecting our IP. Yes, the molecule patent has expired, but for someone else to manufacture to the extreme quality required (unless they come up with a completely new process for doing so), or treat cancer patients with Zantrene (in those indications mentioned so far at least) they are likely to be in violation of at least some of RACs patents. That would make (legally) working with Zantrene (in a clinical/FTO/cancer sense at least) without RACs cooperation pretty damn difficult I expect. This adequately explains to me the reason for the City of Hope/Prof Chen arrangement.

I won't ask this as I'm sure the answer is price sensitive, but now that there are 25+ different cancer types that have been shown to have subsets which overexpress FTO, I wouldn't be surprised to see additional patent submissions from RAC around those indications that are not within the current scope.