Member Info for Bermudashorts

Inanaco,

Thanks so divisional nucleic acid patent is unrelated to TCRs - thanks. Still don't understand how they can encode the DNA and insert into viral vector without nucleic acid protection but way beyond me and I don't need to. Just wanted to establish whether or not the divisional was connected and you've clarified so thanks.

When you get a chance - can you explain what the screening patent is for then? I know how it works but is it just for TCRs? Or is it just part of the process of selecting the best cit. epitopes for any use?

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?

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.

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.

Yes I remember that discussion - are you saying that's relevant to one of the patents?

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?

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?

Inanaco,

Then why do you need one for DNA vaccines? What's the difference? (in terms of the need to use nucleic acids)

As requested I'm copying this post across from advfn. I have also added links to the 2 divisionals in question. Not sure why I need to highlight specific pages - the description stems from the original application. Surely it's the claims (those intended for grant, not any knocked back) you need to be looking at? Anyway, would be grateful for any answers.

Inanaco,

Not the enolase patent - I'm talking about the 2 European divisionals discussed at the weekend - the ones that are about to be granted.

I've explained why I think the nucleic acids patent would cover TCRs but completely accept that I may be wrong. I thought that part of the process involved inserting the genetic code for the modi1 TCR into a viral vector - if that's correct, then how can that be achieved without requiring protection over modi1 nucleic acids?

Re. the screening patent - obviously the process is fairly clear but at what stage is it used and what products does it cover? Is it required to create future vaccines? TCRs? Could it be used for personalised treatments? Or is it just a standard tool for use in modi research?

In other words, exactly what are these 2 patents about?

These are genuine questions (in case you think otherwise). The IP was protected by the very fact the patents had been filed and formed prior art and now they are about to be granted, Scancell will own the IP. The question from gooosed was whether these patents were involved in TCRs and if so, the fact that they're finally about to be granted could be significant.

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP17194251
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP17194252

Yep I understand the structure of licensing deals and the inflection points.

Inanaco - correct (your 10.42) but even with licensing deals, Scancell are years away from regular dividend generating revenue streams. I'm simply trying to make the point that the investment case here doesn't lie with the possibility that perhaps, maybe, if everything goes well then one day Scancell may be able to scale up and secure enough licensing revenue to pay regular dividends. For anyone looking in who is considering taking a position here, the investment case is the potential for near to mediium term news from 2 or 3 possible sources.

shareguard - thanks for the info. and theory re. Vulpes sale.

Crumbs,

Sorry just to be clear, I'm not suggesting for one second that their exit strategy here is the sale of Scancell. In fact I think it's highly unlikely but equally, I don't think they're going to stick around waiting for dividends to roll in - that's not what they're about. As you say, we have no idea what it is - all we know is that they know what they're doing, their strategy is to get in ahead of the market and they've decided to invest. That's good enough for me.

Now it's up to Scancell to deliver.

Apologies posts crossed

Crumbs,

Redmile's decision to invest would have been based on identifying an exit strategy, worth remembering what they're looking for:-

' to recognize product cycles and investment themes before they become the focus of mainstream investors.'

It may not be absolutely cast in stone and clearly needs to be flexible to adapt to unforeseen events but the average length of their investments is 12 to 24 months. Obviously some will be much longer and some much shorter.

As for exactly what their exit strategy is here depends on what their research and due diligence revealed. Could well be Modi1 trial or perhaps there's some other event they can foresee that hasn't yet been spotted by the market!

By the way, you're right, they do review all the time, in fact Redmile has a pre-defined and escalating review process triggered by certain percentages (loss).

Yes perhaps better not get ahead of ourselves - just one deal would be great and put Scancell in a completely different place.

Inanco, you're losing me now - what is license profit share?

Sorry am not with you - most of what get taken over?

Whether or not Scancell go for a non-exclusive Arms Holdings type licensing model or a traditional pharma type licensing model has no bearing on how innovative Scancell are - that's a given.

Yes but the point is that they license the same chips over and over again - so the licensing deals are non-exclusive. Whereas Scancell presumably would only license Modi1 the vaccine once on an exclusive basis and then go on to generate further vaccines from the same platform and license again on an exclusive basis. So that's not an Arms Holdings scenario, it's a standard bio/pharma licensing model.

Don't you think that Avidimab is the most likely candidate for a possible Arms Holdings model?

The Arms Holdings model is based on having an IP portfolio and licensing it again and again isn't it?