Member Info for Bermudashorts

Give it a rest - have another read of Max's 20.24 which received 8 recommendations. One of them was mine - this bb isn't interested in our bickering. If they want to know the rights and wrongs, the posts are all there to see and they can read and judge for themselves.

Yep apologies

Regardless of why you're here, this is a public bb and people should be free to discuss any Scancell related matter. Do you know how very condescending and rude it is to other posters to describe a perfectly valid topics for debate as ' endless petty diversions'?

I have no idea what you're talking about in your 16.14 but I can 100% confirm that I have never intentionally posted information from others and passed it off as my own - in fact I usually try hard to give credit wherever possible. The fact that you think that somehow my posts are motivated by such things is probably the biggest insult in the long line you've thrown my way today.

Regardless of what you may think, I have no motive here other than a desire to see Scancell succeed and for my holding (which is and always has been long) to finally return to profit. I'll leave you to your rat-a-tat-tat, keys to the kingdom discussions.

'Prior art is not irrelevant its the only way the patent can fail ' - IT'S NOT!!!!!

It's one, albeit very important factor. If you seriously think that it's just a question of a favourable ISA search report and then it's a slam dunk then you're seriously underestimating the effort and skill that goes into getting a patent for cutting edge complicated science like Moditope through.

This will be my last post on this.

1) I supported Ivy in his view that shareholders can (and must) be allowed to ask questions at an AGM, that they don't have to be price sensitive and that the BOD should be prepared and able to answer any questions. You will note from the recording that this is exactly what happened.
2) I would never support anyone advocating breaking the law and this is NOT what Ivy was doing. You shouldn't be making such accusations.
3) There is much more to discuss here than the science and you seem to want to shut down any discussion unless it suits. If you would just let some discussions flow, you'd see that they're not necessarily negative and they often lead on to discussions on the science.
4) The prior art issue is irrelevant to the debate we were having and you made assumptions because you didn't understand the process. You didn't want to discuss the granting of the Chinese and Japanese patents and you accused those that did of just moaning for the sake of it. It was a positive that could/should have been communicated better and should/could have been discussed here.

Blimey that's a bit rich when you consider this whole discussion began with your accusation of moaning and actually I have tried very hard not to attack the man.

Anyway, to answer your question the ISR has huge value. A search for prior art is carried out in Chinese, English, German and Japanese, plus other languages where necessary. . It saves each individual patent office from having to do that and gives a standardised high quality search report to all offices. On top of that the examiner will give his/her opinion on the patentability of the invention. If the opinion is not good then the applicant might well decide to withdraw the application. So it saves all concerned time, effort and resources and is of enormous benefit.

Honestly, please, please, please spend some time googling the national phase. The ISR covers prior art and also the OPINION of the examiner as to the patentability of the invention. The decision to grant a patent involves far more than just prior art and when it comes to substantive examination, different examiners may have different opinions. Go back and look at different examiners objections to moditope claims, look at the reasons why and then look at how different claims have been withdrawn/amended in different jurisdictions.

Konar is absolutely right, when patents move into the national phase, individual examiners from individual patent offices carry out their own substantive examinations.

Perhaps if you understood the process, you'd understand that the granting of the Chinese and Japanese patents are actually topics worthy of discussion, are an opportunity to share good news with shareholders and your accusation of moaning earlier was unwarranted.

Why would the US patent office talk to the EU patent office? Nobody has suggested that happens. Any discussions that take place during the national phase take place between the examiner for each patent office's and Scancell (or their patent attorneys)

Have just read your 13.15 - suggest you do some more research into patent processing.

I'm sorry Inanaco but whilst the publication of a patent forms prior art, the decision making involves far more than just that. After an international patent has been published and an international search report produced, the patent passes into the national phase where each individual patent office takes over and will examine the application and reach a decision. Individual patent offices do have full control over their own decisions and there is nothing to say that they have to reach the same decision as other offices. Nor do they have to grant the patent for the same claims with the same wording. You only have to look at the claims for the granted Moditope patents - compare the US and EU claims.

So it doesn't automatically follow that if the EU patent has been granted then the Japanese one will be, nor does it follow that they'll approve the same claims with the same wording and that brings me back to the original discussion here. All that I was saying, (and it seems others agree) is that it would have been good to have been told the good news that the Chinese and Japanese patents had been granted (if indeed they have). I really don't know why you have a problem with that.

I'm really not sure what point you're making about the patent. You seem to be suggesting that the PCT means that if one patent office grants a patent then if automatically follows that the others must. That's simply not the case, the whole idea of the PCT was purely to simplify the application process so that rather that having to submit different patent applications to each different office, a new standardised international procedure was adopted. However, individual patent offices still have full control over the decision making for their own jurisdiction.

You are lucky - you have absolute 100% belief that there is no risk here and so automatically dismiss any post that you consider even remotely negative as moaning, goading, bashing. You may not be bothered whether Scancell inform shareholders of these things but others who at the moment may be feeling a bit jittery may well appreciate it.

I don't think Scancell are ready for extra PR at the moment. The bottom line is that the SP is suffering because they have spent so long with no products in the clinic and the many changes in timescales. We all know why, no point in discussing that because it is what it is, so rather than spending time and effort on PR, they need to just carry on and get those trials started now without any further delays and I guess that's exactly what they're trying to do.

That doesn't mean that where possible they shouldn't do what they can to keep shareholders informed and engaged. A couple of prime examples just this week. While issuing the Proactive RNS they could have just added a paragraph and told us about other more important presentations they were scheduled to make. When issuing the Modi2 RNS, perhaps they could have bolted on a paragraph re. Japanese and Chinese patents? So really IR rather than PR. Easy to say of course but they're clearly stretched atm - Sally Adams working flat out on trials and CH seems to be dashing all over the place from presentation to presentation.

Do you have any links for the additional US patent?

Re. AGM slide - so it does. Can only assume that they have had written confirmation through but the Japanese and Chinese patent offices are slower at updating the online record. Would be good to get clarity on this and as you say, if they have been granted then it would have been good if Scancell had either issued an RNS (even an RNS-R) or at least mentioned it at AGM because the Japanese application in particular has been backwards and forwards and it's great news if it has finally been granted.

I don't want to start another 'unworthy' discussion here and this is nothing to do with PR but simply keeping shareholders informed. China and Japan are really important markets in bio/pharma and strong IP protection is worth noting. Scancell issued an RNS for the granting of the Japanese patent for ImmunoBody back in 2013 but seemingly not for Moditope in 2018?

As far as I can see, a summary of patent situation is below but if you're around Konar, feel free to correct/add.

ORIGINAL MODITOPE PATENT (covers citrullinated peptides inc. vimentin)

European - granted
US - notice of allowance issued on 29th Oct so about to be granted

Still being processed in a number of other jurisdictions inc. Japan, Korea, Canada, China

MODITOPE PATENT FOR ENOLASE

This was a follow on patent application to cover Enolase which was filed in 2016 and published in 2017. Still being processed in all areas with amended claims submitted in June to European office.

EUROPEAN DIVISIONAL PATENTS

There are 2 divisional patents (submitted in Europe only), the seem to cover Moditope nucleic acids and an assay using blood to isolate T cells responding to Moditope and are still pending.

GLYCANS

Application submitted by University of Nottingham back in 2014 and published in 2015. It was granted in the US in September and intention to grant was issued a couple of weeks ago by European patent office.

NEW PATENT

A new patent application was submitted to the UK patent office last week. Have no details whatsoever, just the title which is 'Epitopes'. Assume this must be for homocitrullinated peptides as no other patents have been filed.

Scancell had said at the 2015 AGM and in subsequent annual reports that they were working on a patent application for a new modification. So far that doesn't appear to have materialised so perhaps still to come?

Above is situation as I understand it but folks should check for themselves rather than take my word for it. Konar is the most knowledgeable poster here when it comes to Scancell's patents so would be good to get his input.

Ray, you're right so are you suggesting that the original collaboration didn't cover future moditope TCRs - and that each new peptide and each new modification needs new collaboration agreement?

Interesting thanks

'Cancer vaccine therapy is now situated to be an essential component for a successful antitumor response for so-called cold tumors that are not responsive to the use of single or combination CIMA therapy'

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2714651

The same slide was used at the AGM.