London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I don’t read much into this patent debate although there have been some sensible comments on the subject. The bottom line is that the Chinese will do as they wish and that would be the only threat. It’s worth bearing in mind that a Russian author copied Harry Potter and there is not a fat lot the author and publisher were able to do in that jurisdiction. The Russian authors copy is a much bigger hit than the original apparently!
I would think AGL have taken a smart tactical approach to Patent protection of their technology in that they have created enough patent detail to sufficiently cover the unique approach to their design, but have held back a sufficient amount of IP from the Patent description to hold this as a trade secret.
When you consider that AGL's offering, although simplistic in it's concept and no doubt easy to reverse engineer / copy - much of the success/accuracy of the diagnostic product as a whole is no doubt held via IP trade secrets and huge quantities of data that are closely held by AGL.
There is a vast amount of detail in the the overall process of perfection of all the component parts working seamlessly, and in the use of all the test and trial data accumulated over the years, not just in the consumable, but the processing equipment, the algorithms perfected when used with downstream diagnostic equipment - whether that is AGL's own Ziplex system or another company like Abbots Fish HER2 diagnostic equipment.
Even if someone did attempt to copy Parsortix system - simply copying the details available on the Patent protection is nowhere near enough information to have a competitive alternative up and running in double quick time, especially with trials and FDA process taking so many years.
It is certainly a major barrier to entering the market in the first few years and gives AGL a huge buffer for market penetration.
“A patent is only as good as the money you're prepared to spend defending it” is very true. Most patents are subject to some type of litigation by competitors. A well-known example is the patent infringement suit brought by Amazon.com against Barnes & Noble.com regarding its online shopping software. If the owner incurs legal costs in successfully defending the patent in an infringement suit, such costs are considered necessary to establish the validity of the patent. Thus, the owner adds those costs to the Patent account and amortizes them over the remaining life of the patent.
This taken from Angle's latest corporate presentation should offer some reassurance:-
- 26 granted patents: United States, Europe, China, Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico with patent coverage to 2034
- Proprietary technology with copyright on software and designs, technical know-how, manufacturing and operating procedures, methods and processes
It's naive to believe that Parsortix will be the only microfluidic system that eventually makes it to market, although Angle will have first mover advantage and AN has previously stated that any competition is years behind in terms of securing regulatory approval. The market is absolutely vast, growing all the time and more than big enough for all.
The likes of Apple ,Microsoft , technology and pharmaceutical firms have a significant part of there Capex on legalities ie copyright infringement etc . Also all the Research And Development evidencing the data , costs and tests to how they have got where they are
Malachi, I suspect the patent protection will be strong but, as you say, there are likely to be attempts to copy the idea - after all Parsortix is based on a relatively simple concept. However - to sell into the major medical markets, the US being the one that matters, you need much more than a machine that’s works. You need a body of evidence from respected researchers (tick), detailed patient studies (tick) and FDA approval. A cheap Chinese copy will have to go through all the same hoops that AGL have and that takes many years - as we have seen. On top of that - the US system is a respecter of patents so if it is just a copy or near copy then I wouldn’t be too worried. I watched the Amati VCT presentation a couple of times yesterday (thanks to the poster for the link) and AN’s answers to the questions are always the interesting part. (I recommend it to anyone who hasn’t seen it). It’s interesting that AN is so keen to stress that he wants to work with the big US pharma cos rather than compete - makes you wonder whether there is a political ‘add-on’ to the FDA process. i.e. a reluctance to approve something that is a threat to domestic ‘interests’. This is ‘conspiracy theory’ I know but the reality is often slightly murkier than the theory.
One matter of concern shouild be how well the Parsortix system is patented. Here is a reference to a paper out of China describing a Parsortix like device manufactured in a lab. There may be others who are working on systems using a similar device that may work around the Parsortix patent and spoil the party. I will try to obtain the abstract at least. Jin X, Chen R, Zhao S, Li P, Xue B, Chen X, Zhu X. Biomed Microdevices. 2018 Jun 20;20(2):51. doi: 10.1007/s10544-018-0293-5. PMID: 29926198 In this article, an attempt for efficient screening of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) with excellent operability on microfluidic chips was reported. A Parsortix-like cell separation chip was manufactured in our lab. This chip allowed lateral flow of fluid which increased t …
Gerkin I agree. These positive RNS come thick and fast, and no longer have much impact on SP. I wonder if one of the big pharma firms have already considered a buy out, but as AGL has tie ups with more than one of the big boys - Abbott for one - I doubt if the existence of Parsortix has escaped attention. We are in for a wonderful ride, dv.
I'm convinced people are going to be surprised at the share price outperformance after FDA is achieved. I'm not just talking about the immediate impact either but what follows too. It will really throw the spotlight on Parsortix and it's capabilities. Major players, previously unaware, will be looking and saying who's this little company that have just achieved an FDA clearance and what exactly is it for ? Then they will conduct a thorough research, find out about all the possibilities for the system and discover the fact that an FDA for breast cancer is just the start with most other cancers to follow. They will be amazed and a big scramble may follow to get on board . All only imo of course.
at some point there will be a reslisation and thus correction of everything Parsortix does and subsequent potential ,keep buying as i am every payday . it maybe at times just £160 worth but its accumulation ,also heavily buying at every oppurtunity PRTG agaon mainly oncology but comprehension beyonf belif gla
maybe other side where big buy order being processed in background and those pesky mm's are dropping to collect shares. either way. todays news is positive and its always exciting to see that red dot in the morning wondering if a new contract is about to drop. didnt expect FDA news yet but always a chance of a pharma lab service deal being signed.
Looks like the market is seeing todays news as just another in a long line of validations of the Parsortix technology and an indicator of potential future uses for the tech, but isn't really ascribing any near term value. IMO this is a mistake.
Whist today's news isn't really telling us anything we didn't know, what it is doing is shouting out loud and clear to the ctDNA co's that they need to start seriously looking to get in bed with Angle as it has now been shown through a published study that their ctDNA technology on its own is not good enough to base clinical treatment decisions on.
Whilst on its own this RNS may not trigger action from the ctDNA co's, the direction of travel is clear and it is now a matter (IMO) of 'when' and not 'if' partnerships with the ctDNA co's will happen. When the first one is announced there will be SP fireworks (IMO).
We have seen Parsortix used for many important studies but this one is particularly significant, not just for Angle but for the CTC liquid biopsy sector as a whole. There is now evidence that ctDNA and CTCs captured from the same patient will produce different results. This means:-
1) When making decisions regarding which therapy to prescribe, ctDNA liquid biopsies alone aren't sufficient - a CTC liquid biopsy will be required 2) By comparing the results of ctDNA and CTC biopsies for patients on treatment, physicians may well be able to track the impact of that therapy and make any necessary adjustments. As AN has repeatedly said, the two types of liquid biopsy are complimentary to one another.
Personally I think the investment world hasn’t woken up fully yet as to what an amazing life changing technology this is. Absolutely incredible positive implications for future cancer care. If this doesn’t fly up this morning I will be adding plenty more