The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Brand,
This version allows you to view the contained documents prior to the application going onto the national phase.
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022020569&_cid=P12-KYXFIQ-27518-1
Hopefully it’ll work.
Doc.Daneeka,
Perhaps I should have been a little more specific, I didn’t find any IP granted or IP applications for Mirimus and autoantibodies.
Of course there could be an unpublished application in the pipeline however, this would be very doubtful as Mirimus autoantibodies involvement is now public knowledge, not a route if further development is to be included in an undisclosed patent application, prior disclosures and so forth.
Nice work TommyD _19, ThinShins and gunto2023 joining the dots with Mirimus and Rockefeller University (Casanova), knowing Synairgen are going to utilise the Casanova assay test from the AGM.
As an aside, I carried out a search for IP patent applications for Mirimus and autoantibodies, nothing found. This could suggest they’re licensing the IP, question is, is it the Casanova assay? Balance of probabilities points to it could be likely.
True colours now showing Sakura 7
“In my opinion 2:1 it will be insolvent in 3 years”
My my, we’ve been informed by others as informed as your good self that will be insolvent within a year.
Enjoy your trip.
Sakura7
“if you get an MA you don’t really need a patent. You probably know about data exclusivity?”
IMO at this stage in SGN001’s development and commercialisation, patent protection is preferable to ‘data exclusivity’ which can only come into effect once authorised.
Besides as already stated, once authorised the IP (years) can be extended by Synairgen applying for either a Supplementary Protection Certificate (5years) or Exclusivity protection (up to 12years in U.S).
The preferable route Synairgen will take is ‘Exclusivity’, a strong position to fend off potential infringement.
Well well well, Synairgen’s granted patent has no value, no point bothering in trialling for authorisation as it’ll still be worthless, better warn the BOD to forget the 2 applications in the pipeline.
Your thoughts are bizarre to say the least.
Strange, why are you suddenly using the term ‘we’ I thought you weren’t invested in this no hoper.
Xviolet
It was an only a reply to valuing SNG, which IMO is unwise at this stage.
With Phase2 trials planned for H1, two SNG001 patent applications for Covid and COPD/Corticosteroids now coming up to the 4th year of examination, there’s a great deal to play for moving forward, value wise.
Sakura7
“RE: The plan27 Jan 2024 08:49
Spaceman what assets would you sell? The data? IFN patents expired long ago.”
“(When taxol which had clinical potential was struggling to get over the line it was essentially given away . And it was one of the most effective anti cancer drugs.)”
You know very well that your post was to confuse, otherwise you would have qualified whose patent had expired.
Sakura7,
SNG001 formulation enables administration by vibrating mesh nebuliser.
The formulation maintains the stability of INF-B when administered by this mode. Synairgen have not claimed the IP for INF-B, as you are well aware of, it’s the formulation of INF-B administered by means of a Nebuliser that has a granted patent.
But you go ahead spreading your falsehoods, it won’t make the slightest difference to LTH’s, but you will be called out when you allude to Synairgen’s patent being expired.
Wrong again Sakura7, any how divulging gender, age or otherwise is not my modus operandi on an anonymous BB.
Just correcting your misleading posts. Yes I do understand the term evergreening, the very reason why patents have a limited time span, otherwise innovation and development would be curtailed and we’d be stuck back in 1984 in this instance.
Sakura7
There you go again, trying to confuse the issue of differing modes of action of INF’s, trying to justify your misleading and untrustworthy posts, if you are what you claim to be you should know better!
Sakura,
Synairgen have discovered the means/formulation to successfully nebulise INF-B by means of a vibrating mesh nebuliser without affecting its stability and effectiveness.
You may well have experimented with other forms of INF’s which you haven’t disclosed. However, in INF-B, Synairgen believe they have the most efficient and effective INF.
As for your former INF mesh nebuliser research, if it involved INF-B and you can prove this was prior art to the Synairgen ILI IP by means of documented research papers, then I’m confident Synairgen would not have gained the ILI patent.
Of course if this was overlooked by the relevant patent examiners at the time, even now it’s never too late to lodge prior art and contest the granted ILI patent .
Lastly, the “nonsense” comment was in response to you stating that the Synairgen ILI granted patent had expired. Clearly untrue and misleading!
Sukura7,
The granted ILI patent refers to the all important SNG001 formulation that enables successful nebulisation directly into the lungs where it re-activates the immune system.
Advantages, lower dose required, reduced side effects.
This is the difference to the available systemic INF’s you refer to.
In answer to your comment “Now the idea is not to target covid but viruses more generally there is no real protection in my view”.
SGN001 target is to boost immune system not the virus/s which are in constant flux, but you would know that of course.
Therefore, I disagree with your take that “therapeutic application claims are narrow and inevitably weak given the art”.
As for estimating the IP value at this juncture, it would be premature. With impending Phase2 trials and the 2 additional patent applications now coming up to there 4th year in the process and fruition, the potential IP value is way way beyond the MCAP as it stands ATM, IMO.
Manifesto,
Rightly or wrongly I didn’t recall them explicitly promising to communicate more in the future.
My memory of the events leading up to the AGM debate of company communication was following a comment made by an investor, who stated, “can’t you see the irony in that our communications person (Brooke) has departed the company and you haven’t even disclosed this to us the investors”.
Admittedly it appeared an embarrassing moment for the BOD, but I only remember some muted words, to the effect they would look at communications going forward.
It certainly didn’t appear to be a promise from my recollections.
FWIW for the time being I’m content to wait for further communications regarding the proposed Phase2 company trials.