Member Info for jint

Spacman

Question, are you not of the opinion (bearing in mind the delayed trials to H1) that the BoD and TFG have not discussed contingencies regarding your worst case scenario?

Further to my last post I will add, the original filing dates become Priority Dates in respect of IP rights going forward.

Having extensively studied the previous Synairgen patent applications I have noted nothing regarding ‘Viral Persistence’

So don’t be surprised if an application pops up in the future. Will keep you posted if it does.

Manifesto,

Synairgen to date have never made their intentions known publicly when fIling a new patent application.

For the obvious reasons, a new filing application is not in the public domain (published) for approximately 18months.

This enables the applicant to finely hone the application within reason, along with filling additional supportive applications. Similar to the published Covid application which encompassed 3 eventual published applications that were formed into one application going forward for examination and consideration for Grant.

In the world of maintaining IP confidentiality from competitors this is a normal and wise course of action.

TommyD_19 does make a valid point regarding “viral persistence “ and the possibilities for SNG001.

SlamDunk,

That thought would negate the need for these boards entirely, they provide a limited view of sentiment that’s all.

Spacman,

Our views on the immediate way forward differ, My preference is to give the BoD this last opportunity to achieve their stated H1 plans and goals, starting the Phase2 trials. These limited trials once started should not take an inordinate time to complete.

If they are successful, it will facilitate the ability for the BoD to maximise the opportunities to negotiate from a relative position of strength, be it, J/V or other options that may arise from interested BP’s/parties.

Should they fail to start the trials in H1 and another delay ensues, they will have to answer for their failure at the next AGM or even beforehand and bear the consequences. Until such time I’m of mind to give them this last chance for their current H1 plans.

Spacman, with your financial markets know how I’m surprised to find you seeking the advice of Professional.

Or are we playing bb mind games for the unwary.

Manifesto,

“ I think our stocks may be too close to the end of their shelf life for our last chance trial”

That will depend if the stock is in ‘phial form’ ready for administration, 3year shell life (if I recall shelf under review as it could be longer).

Or

Powder form awaiting ‘fill finish’, 5yrs upto 8yrs deep freeze storage) again I recall storage under review.

I’m with you TommyD_19

There are PI’s who hold opposing views and are willing to let Synairgen continue as planned (H1). The time to reconsider other options is if timelines are not met.

Then perhaps those from both sides of the divide can attend and make their feelings and suggestions known at the next AGM.

Doc.Daneeka

I believe the advantage of the Casanova assay as opposed to others available is the comparative speed of results return, enabling speedier test-treatment for the upcoming trials.

Doc.Daneeka, true but let’s mop them all up while they’re at it.

Not sure what your point is, and feel we may end up going round in decreasing circles.

However, I have confidence in both the Casanova assay test and the ability of Synairgen to use it among other tests to enable the conclusive outcomes for the forthcoming planned Phase2 trials.

Soon we’re about to find out:

“Whether targeted treatment strategies should be initiated in patients with positive auto-Abs should be determined by future studies.”

Not disrespectful to Synairgen Doc.Daneeka, I just can’t envisaged the Casanova assay test being tweaked for Synairgen’s needs/requirements given the years of development in perfecting the assay test and end product.

Doc.Daneeka,

That’s a bit of a stretch to suggest:

“Synairgen are certainly fortunate if Casanovalabs is designing / adapting the assay for the P2s. World leaders in their field and undoubtedly the best partnership you could imagine”

I believe it’s more a case of two science driven researchers coming together at an opportune time in their research cycle rather than designing/adapting the Casanova assay for the P2’s.

Thought likewise gunto2022

In light of the expected use of the Casanova assay test in our upcoming Phase2 trials, and the assay being a new development.

I’ve been looking at the requirements for Diagnostic Trials, assuming Synairgen will be first out the blocks to utilise this new test, it would appear that the stakeholders of the Casanova assay test have as much to gain from a successful SNG001 Phase2 trial as ourselves.

It leads me to believe that the Casanova stakeholders have been careful when choosing the right candidate (SNG001) to showcase their diagnostic test. Hence a perfect marriage for both Synairgen and Casanova stakeholders:

“Although establishing an accurate diagnosis or excluding disease is a critical first step to manage a health problem, medical decision-makers generally rely on a larger evidence base of empirical data that includes how tests impact patient health outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, functional status, and quality of life. Therefore, the diagnostic trial type II evaluates the value of test results to guide or determine treatment decisions within a broader management strategy. Typically, differences in diagnostic accuracy result in differences in delivery of treatment, and ultimately affect disease prognosis and patient outcomes. As such, in the diagnostic trial type II, the downstream consequences of tests followed by treatment decisions are evaluated together in a joint construct. These diagnostic randomized clinical trials or test-treatment trials are considered the gold standard of proof for the clinical effectiveness or clinical utility of diagnostic tests.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600406/

From the past, we know there has been mutual admiration for each other’s work in the autoantibodies and INF field.

Doc.Daneeka,

Not sure how you came to that impression, as far as I’m aware the first time the Casanova assay test is being employed by Synairgen is for their Phase2 trials.

TommyD_19

I can confirm during pressing questioning at the Q&A session (AGM), whilst they confirmed they would be using the Casanova assay test, they would not divulge the manufacturer, only to say the test is not commercially available yet.

My reaction was, a useful marriage, Synairgen need the test, unknown manufacturer obtains in field use.

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.