Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
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:
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 Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. 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.
Dallo:
Your last 3 posts which provide the background to the RNS today, are indeed highly informative and interesting. Thanks for explaining about the development of peptides in treating auto-immune diseases in general and for the P140 peptide platform in particular. They are very, very helpful for long term shareholders like me who sometimes have depended more on intuition than science for holding on through all the ups and downs of IMM.
I am now well into my eighties and I wonder sometimes if success will come to IMM before I expire!
Wigwammer
Since the original patents on the P140 peptide therapies were granted 10/15 years ago there has been an exponential growth in formulations, modifications and delivery systems leading to major integration of peptides in numerous drugs including human insulin , growth hormones and many auto immune diseases.
Todays announcement reflects that advancement in technology and CNRS and Immupharma will be applying for new enhanced patent protection to cover the improvements in its own P140 formulations and delivery.
Nice Ā£9.6k buy on the bell
Indeed nolupus. It only takes people a few minutes research to realise that your first post this morning - stating that Imm are only one of the joint holders - is highly misleading, and lacks requisite detail. The CNRS have already handed over a large part of the rights and immupharma have consequently developed the product to phase 3. From an economic pov, they own the vast majority of the IP. Your suggestion - that the IP is jointly shared - is simply misleading and semantic twaddle. ATB
So circumstances arose where the French State owned giant research institute in effect ceded the commercial rights to a major innovative drugs programme which it developed to Immupharma because of the connections of Zimmer and Muller and the need for funding from the markets with London being the then Mecca for funds for developing biotech companies rather than the moribund Paris market.
Zimmer got old and retired to Switzerland and McCarthy in fairness kept the dream alive.
He has surprised me but he must be given enormous credit for for getting Immupharma to this stage when all appeared lost.
With CNRS and Dr Muller still involved with Immupharma we should be thankful regardless of sharing patents and intellectual property and revenue sharing on future success.
Without them and the Alora Group we would be another AIM shell company or worse.
Now we have a Phase 3 Lupuzor trial, CIDP Phase 2/3 trial ( subject to funding from commercial deal) and the Anti Infection drugs plus Incanthera and valuable tax losses et al.
All for a market cap of cĀ£10m.
Reasons to be cheerful
Cauldstream
Some of us have been here so long we cannot remember our own name!!
The CNRS ,under Dr Muller and her team , has spent tens of ā¬millions on developing the P140 programmes and obviously being French , CNRS choose to share its scientific knowledge and intellectual property with another French company and that ultimately was Immupharma Biotech SAS in Bordeaux.
Also Robert Zimmer the founder of Immupharma was also a well known scientist in France and worked with Muller on the P140 drugs.
It has been a long and tortuous road but hopefully we are now getting closer to a major breakthrough.
I am not getting any younger!
Dallo;
Thanks for enlightening all of us on the collaboration between CNRS and IMM. It also explains why many of us invested in IMM in the first place, something that I for one tend to forget.
Long term investors in Immupharma know all about the background to the unique collaboration between CNRS , the French State fundamental research institute which is the biggest in Europe employing
33,000 people and an annual budget of ā¬5 billion.
Dr Sylvane Muller and other scientists in CNRS developed the P140 Peptide programme over 14 years ago and CNRS granted Immupharma exclusive worldwide rights to commercialise the resultant drug discoveries including Lupuzor and CIDP.
The patents and intellectual property rights to the full Peptide programme are shared jointly by CNRS and Immupharma France SA , a 100% subsidiary of Immupharma plc.
CNRS has affiliations with major research institutions worldwide including the top Universities and continues to work closely with Immupharma and Avion on the Lupuzor trials and on the CIDP and Anti Infections drugs and in return will receive a % of future revenues on commercialisation of the drugs
The % is assumed to be c20% but in the context of today's RNS on enhancing the intellectual property rights , I see the CNRS input to be crucial to expedite the matter.
To have the CNRS as our research partner is unprecedented for a small AIM Biotech company and if its support leads to successful outcomes for the P140 platform in multi billion $ markets then shareholders will not worry if the CNRS revenue share is higher than 20% or so.
And i stick to that ..supermobileman
50-50 Ownership With the CNRS
Then the CNRS accepted to out license their part to Immupharma for a % of any future revenues.
Anyway, all it takes Anyone IS a few minutes research if they want to DYOR
Nolupus,
You don't know the truth. You are making it up as you go along. It's you who dug the hole and now you're trying to wiggle your way out.
You said it was 50/50 shared ownership of patent with CNRS.
Nolupus.
Shame on all of us who are unfairly bashing you.
So now we can expect silence from you; as you say, it's not worth the effort.
Shame, we just can't seem to keep the daily gains. What will it take to get over 3p
Just goes to show that nobody wants to know the truth but a lot just want to Bash nolupus but whatever..
Not worth the effort ...
Immupharma holders can rest assured that the vast majority of whatever economic value sits with those patents belongs to them. And donāt let some duplicitous bore with a weird hang up distract you from this point. ATB
Nolupus
You tell us - haven't you done your own research?
Wigwammer,
Are IMM joint owners of the patents With the CNRS or not ?
Nolupus said āthey are joint holders 50:50 with the CNRSā. Wrongā¦ Nolupus said āthey are only one of the joint patent holdersā. In any material sense, wrongā¦. You are being silly, mr nolupus, and anyone with a brain cell can see it. ATB
Wigwammer,
You continue to dig a hole for yourself..
All you have to do IS read the Imm company reports or just Google it
Frits - well if he has no position currently then I guess just a bit bitter?ā¦. And objectively, mr nolupus, anyone with a brain cell can read your posts this morning and see your knowledge is pretty ropey. But if you want to kid yourself otherwise..
WIgwammer,
Please be under no illusion, Nobinpus by his own admission, has absolutely no financial investment in IMM. He is not and as long as I can unfortunately remember has never been. His only involvement in IMM is positing misleading and negative sentiment about the company. Just report any misleading or incorrect post he send out. He has had more bans on this message board for posting misleading information than I care to remember.
He is just some type of Walter Mitty character who pretends he is invested and posts messages that he is invested here but he is not. As long as I am aware which has been the best part of nine years he was never invested in IMM. But his narrative is a passive aggressive approach to intensely mislead and put off potential new investors which is against the law.
Most holders have absolutely no idea why he is posting on a random message board and why he pretends he is an IMM investor, very strange behaviour.
I have no idea why this individual would want to hinder and discourage the advancement of a drug that can help reduce the suffering caused by Lupus. He must be very disappointed at all the positive news and the recent rise in stock price, the better IMM does the more his dribble and misleading negative views get posted.
This company is an extremely strong buy and is only going from strength to strength.
In Tim we trust.
Frits
Wigwammer and CS7 and others-totally agree re Nolupus. Waste of time-little or no research dripped with sarcasm.
GLA
ALL JOKES ASIDE im the first to moan about imm but i do think it has turned a corner yes they will raise cash , I AM a buyer soon
Wigwammer,
I think my research and knowledge IS quite sufficent but your own may be lacking After many years out of touch.
Throwing stones IS just too easy ...
Mr Nolupus,
The patents are not jointly owned in any material sense with the CNRS as you initially suggested. Nor is there ia 50/50 partnership either in terms of patents or licensing royalties with the CNRS, as you later suggest. I find your repeated moralising offensive - given that you have evidently done limited research yourself, and that you repeatedly site negatives while owning the shares. In other words - saying one thing and doing another. Stop the moralising my friend, and people may stop holding up the mirror to you. ATB
Cauldstream7,
Can you not read ?
There is a MAJOR difference between PATENT Ownership and licensing agreements and royalties ..
DYOR