Thanks Dungiven, and Mozarc too of course,The issue for me is...

Thanks Dungiven, and Mozarc too of course,

The issue for me is that we can't, on the one hand say that the exclusive supply agreement with Bene represents an important part of Par's IP, and then, when we learn that apparently it doesn't cover our principal market (the USA), say that it doesn't really matter because we've still got the protection of a patent on the treatment of BMELs. When it comes to IP protection, everything matters, because at the end of the day, IP is all we've got.

Also, as the report that we're referencing here correctly notes "It is important to understand that the above patents provide significantly inferior protection than a composition of matter patent. If Paradigm is successful, such patents are likely to be challenged by would-be competitors."

Dungiven, to address your point around the BMEL patent, as I recall, the position was, (as I understood it from, I think, the 51Capital analysis), that with nearly every case of OA there were associated BMELs, so it didn't really matter that the PAR patent didn't cover the treatment of OA per se, as a patient with with OA would invariably also have BMELs, so couldn't be treated with iPPS without infringing PAR's patent.

But in this review we read that "Results of epidemiological studies suggest that there are approximately 12 million patients in the United States, 50 years of age and older, with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, of whom an estimated approximately 7 million have BMELs". In other words, if we are to believe these numbers, slightly over 40% of patients with knee OA don't have BMELs, and, presumably, could be potentially treated with iPPS without infringing one of PAR's patents. Where would that leave us, in the most litigious marketplace in the entire world? Sounds messy to me.

Dungiven, yes, if somebody started marketing a generic competitor product, PAR probably could get a preliminary injunction or a TRO, as an issued patent is generally assumed by a court to be valid, and the burden of proving invalidity is shifted to the defendant, but I hope by that time we would have a very deep-pocketed Big Pharma standing right behind us, chequebook in hand.

As I've said, I'm still very positive about PAR and its prospects, and having bought in at an average entry price of 80c, I'm obviously happy with the current SP. I would, however, like a bit more clarity around the IP position - the more transparency here the better I think.

Thanks very much to everyone who posts here - these threads are generally of a very high quality.

No legal or investment advice intended here - just my own opinions, which are frequently quite wrong.