Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video here.
Circulating tumour cells do not express FAP, I was told in answer to a question in an Avacta session years ago. So, as the tumour reduces in size there is less FAP expressed. Consequently, there is less cleavage of AVA6000 and I wonder if the tumour shrinkage may be limited to some percentage of its original size in a balance of cleavage and tumour growth. In which case, absent any side-effects, could AVA600 become a lifetime treatment that might be preferable to surgery?
I was wondering whether anyone else was still hoping for a better offer.....
There have been a number of estimates of Nanoco’s receipt for a successful conclusion.
No forward royalty is a surprise. Samsung supplies screens to a number of TV makers. Would they be royalty-free as well?
Here are a couple of pointers:-
An estimate backed by some guesstimates. Reasonable or otherwise, one could put one’s own figures into the template.
https://www.specialsituationinvestments.com/2022/09/nano-patent-litigation-multibagger-upside/
Another view, with some examples of Samsung previous settlements.
https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/nanoco-wins-legal-battle-with-samsung-and-outcome-could-be-worth-a-mint-to-manchester-tech-firm
Either way, “lower end” expectation management feels more like 100 rather than 500.
Verification of licensee reports is more like detective work. The licensee data comes in and one needs to verify it against other sources in the public domain such as customs data in different territories, retailer sales data, etc. Understand the manufacturer volume capability. Check product serial numbers regularly.
It helps if the royalty is collected at more than one point in the supply chain, For example, the chip maker is licensed and should only sell to product manufacturers who are also licensed. If the chip maker volume is higher than the aggregate product manufacturer volume then someone is not being entirely honest. Go look at products in the shops to see whether they claim to use the licensed technology and then cross-reference.
Dolby Laboratories evolved a licensee management capability that was so good other licensors of related technologies effectively sub-contracted royalty collection to Dolby. That increased the data sources and the identification and elimination of “errors”.
Most helpful - thank you
The addition of "Mixtures of different clusters and aggregates of two or more clusters are not molecular cluster compounds" by S to the Nano defintions is concerning me. It is a sweeping statement that permits exclusion by the addition of other materials to the compound.
Not so sure... breaking the text up a bit:-
ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (DKT. 84)
Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 84).
The Court, having considered the same and any responses thereto, is of the opinion the motion should be GRANTED.
The Court hereby construes the term “molecular cluster compound” for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,803,423 (“’423 patent”), 7,588,828 (“’828 patent”), 8,524,365 (“’365 patent”), 7,867,557 (“’557 patent”), to mean “clusters of three or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound are identical to one another in that each has the same molecular formula, mass, and size. Mixtures of different clusters and aggregates of two or more clusters are not molecular cluster compounds.”
Any idea where the text of the Samsung motion might be found? And the claim construction morandum?
The court has reconsidered and comes up with the definition statement. If that statement was proposed by Samsung then I wonder what they have found. If it was taken from NANO documentation then that might be a better outcome.
GSK to acquire clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company Affinivax, Inc. GSK to pay $2.1 billion upfront and up to $1.2 billion in potential development milestones.
With technology exclusivity, it is remarkably similar to AVCT. Looks like this vaccine development still has several years to go. The 7 year old company has had around $400M invested thus far.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GSK/gsk-to-acquire-affinivax-inc/15475343
My preference would be for AVCT to grow and compete on its own merits but if a big pharma took a fancy there is not much one can do.
Dream on, y'all
I, too, have despaired at the presentations of AVCT news recently. I, too, am paying the price being 50% adrift. I hope that one or more of the senior management have the gumption to get a grip on the issues because the CEO is clearly struggling.
Not directly connected to the ups and downs on this board but this paper is worth a read. It attempts to quantify the effectiveness of lockdowns and other governments’ interventions upon mortality in the evolving Covid crisis in 2020. The most interesting observations are in the latter half of the paper so it is worth flogging through the first half to understand why they reach their conclusions.
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
An article in the FT on 19 Dec re LFT, free to read https://on.ft.com/3seFgcF
Has just 2 out of 262 comments with references to UK LFTs and the sorry state of this government. I guess not many FT readers on this board...
Thank you for your thoughts. The 13% drop to yesterday is rather more than its peers that I found in consumer leisure goods. So there must be something that concerns the "market" that I have not been able to find. G4M has a bit of a track record in big drops in SP. I have held increasing numbers of shares since their initial offering so the portfolio is rather sensitive. Wait and see, as usual!
Any ideas as to why the SP has dropped 140 since 30 September? No director sales, no RNS. Anticipation of weak sales over Christmas?
Very negative article in the FT re LFTs, headed
"UK to phase out free rapid Covid tests by spring, believes supplier
Innova chief would be ‘surprised’ if free lateral flow testing was available to individuals beyond early next year"
Not a credible source, but there you go. Odd since the article goes on to describe poor performance of LFT and the Innova/FDA history .
Look forward to the Avacta PR team response.
Thought this might show up here today. I was looking at it earlier. The “headline catching” statement is
“Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases (vaccinated people) were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”
I think they compared two median PCR Ct figures from the two studies converted to copies to come up with that number.
The study from June 2020 is at
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/10/2679/5851471
was about symptomatic and asymptomatic cases amongst random people caught up in their test program and viral load variation over time.
The newer study was of a group of vaccinated hospital workers in an air-conditioned, un-ventilated environment and guess what, their viral loads were higher. A gift for the anti-vaxers.
I agree the Avacta marketing and PR functions leave a lot to be desired. There is nothing on the website that shows or illustrates the product that is being shipped, quantifies the product shipped so far, output capacity, usage video etc. All trivial stuff to create and post. As for "...please contact your local Avacta distributor" leaving the reader with another search rather than a link to distributors, I despair. The technical stuff is great but the website needs to enable the prospective product buyer to place an order, now .
Excellent. DBay still have 29%, bought at 150p, and a seat on the board. Presumably the sp will be held at that until they exit that position. Look forward to an rns confirming a reduction in the holding.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/AZN/saphnelo-approved-in-the-us-for-sle/15081233
They get the first new treatment for 10 years accolade.
TechFT review
"As Facebook talks about immersive experiences, Samsung is providing one, with this 49in curved gaming monitor available for pre-order from today. The Odyssey Neo G9 features the first Quantum Mini LED display, with the LEDs a fortieth of the height of conventional ones and the tech making dark areas darker and bright areas brighter — a peak brightness of 2,000 nits and a static contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1 are cited. The screen has a 32:9 aspect ratio that offers Dual Quad High-Definition 5,120×1,440 resolution, a rapid 240Hz refresh rate and 1ms response time. The G9’s coolness factor is increased by a customisable lighting system for it, although Engadget swoons at the $2,500 price tag."
For more info :-
https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/gaming/49--odyssey-g95na-gaming-dqhd-led-monitor-ls49ag952nnxza/
Is this document
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-test-approval-how-to-apply?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_source=08b8bf3b-5a84-4d08-affc-0bdb795d3871&utm_content=daily#outcome-reporting
and the linked documents relevant to Avacta's LFT? Seems more like a lab test from text below...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005924/Test_performance_guidance.odt
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005922/TVG_test_threshold_guidance.odt
Test Performance Guidance
This TPP is for laboratory based SARS-CoV-2 Viral detection tests.
Intended use
Desired
Multiplex - Determining current infection by detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus in samples from people of all ages at any point during active infection and differentiating from other respiratory infections
Acceptable
Determining current SARS-CoV-2 infection by detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in samples from people of all ages during the active phase of infection.
Target user
Desired
Trained healthcare / public health professionals (i.e. one of the 10 health and social care professional bodies that are overseen by the professional standards authority ) and suitably trained and assessed as competent lab technician or scientist.
Acceptable
Trained healthcare / public health professionals (i.e. one of the 10 health and social care professional bodies that are overseen by the professional standards authority ) and suitably trained and assessed as competent lab technician or scientist.
Comment
A target user will perform the assay, interpret and communicate the results.
Full training appropriate to the intended user is required.
Target use Setting
Desired
Healthcare and Medical Laboratories
Acceptable
Healthcare and Medical Laboratories
Comment
These exclude Point of Care (POC) testing environments which will utilise test types that are appropriate for that setting.
Turnaround time
Desired
Less than 90 minutes from sample to result.
Acceptable
Less than five hours from sample to result
Comment
The time is from receipt of sample in test laboratory.
Throughput
Desired
More than 200 tests in unit per 4 hours
Acceptable
More than 50 tests per unit in 4 hours
Hands-on time
Desired
Less than five minutes per sample
Acceptable
Less than 20 minutes per sample
I was pleased to see a response to my Q22 which was looking to see whether there was an application for an AVA6000 derivative to destroy CTCs before they metastasize and become new tumours. An engineering approach rather than an oncological approach. It seems not, but there maybe scope for another CTC-specific affimer to be developed which can latch on to and damage that CTC. Of course, it is easy to capture CTCs with another techonology from ANGLE (AGL), in which I have an interest, so evolving an appropriate affimer should be relatively straightforward.!
The Avacta RNS says one thing, the BSI scope says similar. Avacta manufacture and supply Affimer reagents.
The RNS statement ”ISO 13485 certification means that the CE mark for the AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow test can be transferred to Avacta from its partner, Mologic, and Avacta will be legal manufacturer of all future in-vitro diagnostic products.” is troubling. If Avacta was able to demonstrate evidence of its capability to design, develop and manufacture an LFT then the scope should include these activities.
My understanding of ISO 9001 and 13485 etc does not extend Avacta's capability to the design, development and manufacture of LFT's. Perhaps there is an overriding government EUA for UK demand but I struggle to see how a market in the EU or elsewhere can be fulfilled with LFT product supplied by Avacta given the information I have to hand. It will be interesting to see how Calibre react.
Acquisition of an LFT developer/manufacturer with ISO 13485 would be a solution to this issue. Licensing an LFT developer/manufacturer is another. Either way, capital costs/lower income have not been factored in by the posters on this board in recent months.