We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
sorry i changed the wording and forgot to delete the first entered
i would describe it as the Zebra crossing .... patent
it does not matter how or why you entered the pedestrian entered that zone .............. but if you as a driver hit somebody on it .. you are at fault
the patent is the zebra crossing .....
yes ... Scancell has already characterised the epitopes and Lindy has stated they are Protected
So, as I understand it from Inan, it is about protecting all possible ways of arriving at the TCR for a citrullinated epitope.
This will be my final question. This whole thread is nothing to do with whether or not Scancell have adequately protected their IP - that is a given. The reason gooosed asked the original question was around the timing of the grant of the TCR patent and how that may feed into the potential timing of any BioNTech deal.
Can you answer this and please make it a yes/no - could BioNTech license, build and market modi1 TCR therapy without the nucelic acids divisional patent?
Hence RG's 'land grab' comments and excitement the other year I presume.
i will repeat ......... ALL the patents granted to be granted .... protect the fundamental Consequence of Moditope
The ........... Generated TCR
if the TCR is not protected .............. we have no patent protection at all
Biontech would not be collaborating ... instead they would build and MRNA moditope vaccine and clone t cells from that
Ray,
No it's much more fundamental than that - the divisional patent covers nucleic acids. So all DNA, mRNA vaccines and possibly or possibly not TCRs lol. Much more than just a loophole.
Inanaco,
One word answer then - is the divisional nucleic acid patent that is about to be granted required to create TCRs? Yes or No.
Bermuda i am at a loss how to explain it further ............
all the patents protect the TCR .....
Is this Lindy just closing loopholes? Perhaps the main Moditope patent does not cover every possible way to target the citrullinated epitopes.
Inanaco,
Re, your emaild to LD, as we discussed at the time, you only asked whether TCRs were covered by ' the existing published patents or divisional patents'. We know TCRs will be covered but we're trying to establish whether they're covered by the original Moditope patent which was granted ages ago or whether they fall under the divisional nucleic acids patent that is about to be granted.
The reason is not to cast any doubt on whether or not they're protected - of course they will be. It's to establish whether the patent covering TCRs has been in force for some time now or whether it's about to be granted. I get that the original patent covers the peptides which would be needed to stimulate T cells in the first place, but is the nucleic acid patent required to create TCRs? Can you say yes/no? If not, that's fine.
pretty sure
even if you discovered a new sequence ... ie peptide on the cancer .. you would still fall under the patent .. because to get it to work you need to citrullinate it ... ie that modification
Land Grab
last attempt .......
All the patents of moditope protect the TCR ................. because the TCR is the consequence of the patent ...
the patent is written in a way that protects us from others using any form of the sequence using nucleic acid or peptide etc
in previous debates on this very subject i emailed the boss with a very specific question
Ref the current published patents for moditope
1/ the activated TCR's generated by exposure to the modi1 peptides ... ie is the current information
that has been put out in RNS regarding BioNtech modi 1 epitopes, is that covered under the existing published patents or divisional patents
effectively "protecting " the TCR 's generated
reply
Yes
Yes I remember that discussion - are you saying that's relevant to one of the patents?
Lindy response indicates that they are "Moditope" tcr
question to lindy ..........
I have been been thinking about this .. naive CD4 T cell from a patient is given the TCR from a moditope reactive CD4 T cell .. but the difference is our moditope cd4 has already "differentiated" into a Cd4 killer .. is this differential carried over by the TCR ? or does the T cell need to have a further engagement with a DC with the correct cytokine environment to develop the correct epigenetic modifications needed
response
Excellent question. We pre-activated and differentiate the CD4 T cells before we transduce them with the Moditope TCR.
Kind Regards,
lindy
Inanaco,
Yes, I get that but is for TCRs or just for vaccines or both? Could it be used for a personalised version of Moditope? (that might be a silly question).
I get that the nucleic acids patent covers DNA vaccines but would like to know whether it also covers TCRs and I get the process with the screening patent but would like to understand how that relates to products , what it's for?
Bermuda .. yes ...
they are screening the consequence of the patent after blood has been exposed to it
Assume you're talking about the screening patent in your last post? Just to help others follow, any chance you could start your post by confirming which one you're talking about?
So are you saying that screening patent is related to TCRs and is to select the best T cell after stimulation of blood with modi1?
but the sequence as a dna and as an RNa ........... has a consequence , the same as the peptide .. so you have to protect the nucleic acid sequence otherwise BioNtech could generate a RNA vaccine sequence and break the patent
Its my view that ....
when you give a vaccination no activated T cells will be exactly the same, thus you may end up with 50 TCR's each able to clonal expand differently .. .... it would be impossible to then try and replicate the RNA in every individual T cell that is being exposed to a single peptide then writing that sequence generated into a patent .... 50 times .. or 1000 times then the little critters adapt as well ..
Inanaco,
Then why do you need one for DNA vaccines? What's the difference? (in terms of the need to use nucleic acids)
Hi Bermuda thanks for the links .......
I will try and explain ..
the TCR's are a consequence of the patents .... you cannot generate the TCR without the patent, the reason why the patent is so strong is because the epitope is "modified" via Citrullination or homocitrulline while the non citrulinated did not induce the TCR this relates back to what Burble was discussing with the Two peptides sequences in the patent for the same epitope .. the other day
thus you do not need a specific patent for the transfecion of RNA from T cell to T cell because that can only be generated by the patent as a consequence