Member Info for BuenaVista

And now Coco has arrived!

Exatecan is given as Example 50 from column 63 through to the end of the patent. Details given include a complete description of the method of synthesis (with physico-chemical properties to demonstrate purity) as well as the methods and results of the in vitro and animal in vivo characterisation that Daiichi did which showed the pharmacological (anti-tumour) activity that caused them to patent exatecan and the series of related analogues - all work that is now handed on a plate to any company that wants to commercialise exatecan.

A more intelligible form of the patent: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3d/58/64/b08b60c2da2c9b/US5834476.pdf

The Wiki entry, showing the synthesis of exatecan, which will also be off-patent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exatecan

The obvious candidate is Daiichi's exatecan if AVA6103 contains one of those drugs Myles lists that have gone through human trials.

Structure: https://www.google.com/search?q=exatecan+structure

Myles wrote that it remains under patent but according to Wiki, the patent is this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5834476/

This US patent has expired due to the annual fees not being paid - probably because Daiichi had given up on commercialising exatecan.

The weakness of ADCs has been the linker as they have not been specific to the TME, meaning a lot of off-target toxicity - until now.

Trader M1Rob lights the blue touch paper and retires.

What have I told you about the Dunning-Kruger effect Derek.

SNewby wrote "The average length of Phase I oncology trials typically ranges from 12 to 18 months" and asked about the AVA6000 trial "What are the main causes for ridiculous timelines?"

Well there are several reasons why AVA6000's Phase 1 is running so slowly: poor planning, regulatory authority restrictions, lack of cash and, most importantly, failure to find the MTD. It hasn't been for lack of trying that no MTD has been found and not being able to reach a MTD whilst being able to prove efficacy as well as safety and long term tolerability is actually a Good Thing.

You see SNewby, you looking at the average length of oncology Phase 1 trials means that you've been considering a whole lot of cancer drugs that are soooo cytotoxic and soooo indiscriminate that they kill cells, er... indiscriminately, which means that the MTD is reached pretty quickly in the dose escalation stage and if the drugs don't fail then then they likely fail in the later phases due to their tendency to damage, if not kill, patients before showing any appreciable curing effect.

You see SNewby, it's all perfectly explainable if you just sit down and put on your objective, rational head. If... I've seen your posting history SNewby and I know exactly what you are.

Yes the concentrations ∼2 log scale higher than plasma applies to both but the important part was the "resulting in antitumor activity in FAPhigh tumor types", which his consistent with what was said in the June presentation.

BeanCounting is a trader. Ignore.

@54retiresoon, you seem to be quoting from the abstract. Could you provide the link to it please?

Mr Boyrazian's 'research' only went as far as reading the June business update RNS. Don't know wheter the absymal write-up was deliberate or incompetence and don't really care as it won't affect the company's prospects.

Polypeptides and methods for detecting and quantifying small molecules: https://patents.google.com/patent/GB202403780D0/en?assignee=avacta&oq=avacta&sort=new

It could be this parent, in which case it will be a year, or two years if they drop the GB application (and use the EP patent for GB coverage), before we know the details.

The patent world is f'in complicated. Yo have to be an Einstein to understand it all.

This conference being on 23-25 October in Barcelona would suggest that Avacta's big 'Research and Development Spotlight Science Day' reveal in London could well be the following week or the week after that, the first week in November.

Yes, the only research done for that Fool article was an incomplete understanding of the last business RNS: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AVCT/agm-business-update-69047vdo80bayau.html

...resulting in a complete misunderstanding of what Avacta is, where Avacta is, and what Avacta's prospects are.

Or this patent application:

Polypeptides and methods for detecting and quantifying small molecules: https://patents.google.com/patent/GB202403780D0/en?assignee=avacta&oq=avacta&sort=new

Because of this early notification of what has been filed, the titles of patents are chosen to be deliberately obscure and uninformative in order to keep competitors in the dark for as long as possible!

Given that the priority applications of these three patents were all less than a year ago, we won't get any detail of the structure of AVA6103, unless of course it is covered by an earlier published application, the reason being Avacta has a year from the priority date to file applications at other patent offices around the world and any public disclosure of the invention in the meantime would invalidate any such filings.

However, in order to continue to keep the competition in the dark, the invention described in the patent - in this case the structure - will not be made public until after the first patent application (the priority application) has been published after 18 months.

Whilst it is true that patent applications are published a long time after the filing date, there is a bare bones notification within a couple of months of patents having been filed.

I was wrong about no patent having been filed. These two, which are still just notifications of having been filed are definite possibilities for the PDC and AffDC series:

Methods for the treatment of tumours (PDCs, including AVA6103?): https://patents.google.com/patent/GB202318971D0/en?assignee=avacta&oq=avacta&sort=new

Novel constructs (AffDCs?): https://patents.google.com/patent/GB202402070D0/en?assignee=avacta&oq=avacta&sort=new

Two things struck me about the news of his conference poster. Firstly, Avacta will be presenting meaningful data. They'll have to in order to be able to present the poster, so we can expect invitro and early animal model data along the lines that was presented for AVA6000 and then AVA3996 and, given CC's excitement over the pipeline, that data will hopefully be every bit as good.

Secondly, the research number 6103 suggests Avacta are now employing a rational sequential numbering system (101, 102, 103, etc) and the 6 is used because AVA6000 was the previously highest number or - preferably! - because the AVA6100 series uses the same 5140 leaving group as AVA6000 has and so its PK and in vivo behaviour in humans will be known.

There doesn't appear to be any notification yet of a patent having been filed.