|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 7, 2023 10:45:16 GMT -5
Aged - since you have been through the patent process many times can you please explain why Peter would assign this patent? In 2015 Peter was working for Alcon. In 2008 or there abouts MNKD stopped work on TS GLP1. He left MNKD in 2012. The publication date is 3/19/2015, nearly three years later. IDK, maybe its me but if worked on something 7 years ago and nothing was done with it and I still thought it was a great idea I am not sure I would go back to my previous employer who had no interest. Then Mago posts in 12/2022 MNKD files a very similar patent. Lets assume the publication date is 18 months after the PTO received it. It almost seems like Peter started putting the application together right after he left MNKD. Does that seem correct? He will assign the patent because that's what his contract of employment says he will do. It's a pretty standard clause if you work in an area where discovering new things or processes is a possibility. By all means cut out your old employer, but don't be surprised when you end up in court and they win, it's a simple breach of contract. I don't think you understand the patent process so lets take this one as an example. Richardson will not have filed this, he is just one of four inventors on that filing, it will have been done by Mannkind during an intellectual property sweep. These are periodic sweeps through the company's assets looking for patentable material. Everything then gets thrown at the patent attorney who decides if it's patentable in their view - this is an extremely low bar for reasons that become clear. The date the work is done is irrelevant to the filing which is often, as in this case, years later. There is a common misconception that patents are there to stop people from stealing your invention. These days patents are primarily used as weapons in court, both offensively and defensively. Defensively they are used to counter-sue for breaching one of your patents if someone tries to sue you. Offensively you get patent trolls and companies like UTHR using them offensively. When I asked the question we had no idea who filed the application. I later posted MNKD did. My point was nothing would have stopped Peter from filling his own patent after he left the company if MNKD did not. Why they waited 8 years I have no idea when the work was done in 2007. I doubt it was an "intellectual property sweep" but more of a question from Al after Peter left asking whatever happened to the TS GLP1 work Peter had done. Why they abandoned it, I can only guess. What we do know is they refiled in 12/2022. What we also know is this is not currently on any MNKD pipeline slide. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 7, 2023 12:20:24 GMT -5
When I asked the question we had no idea who filed the application. I later posted MNKD did. My point was nothing would have stopped Peter from filling his own patent after he left the company if MNKD did not. Why they waited 8 years I have no idea when the work was done in 2007. I doubt it was an "intellectual property sweep" but more of a question from Al after Peter left asking whatever happened to the TS GLP1 work Peter had done. Why they abandoned it, I can only guess. What we do know is they refiled in 12/2022. What we also know is this is not currently on any MNKD pipeline slide. Don't guess why it was abandoned, read the correspondence. You seem fixated on the idea that Richardson in some way has rights to this work. He doesn't. This is about property rights. Mannkind paid for the work and it's theirs to do with as they want. If I buy a car and leave it in the yard for the next 20 years at no point do any of the workers who built it have the right to claim it as theirs. The same applies to intellectual property - it remains theirs until they sell it. |
|
|
|
Post by Earl Grey on Jul 7, 2023 12:28:09 GMT -5
Sorry about putting the graphs in the wrong Subject - I don't know how to change them to the right stream !
|
|
|
|
Post by mayday on Jul 7, 2023 12:51:22 GMT -5
Sorry about putting the graphs in the wrong Subject - I don't know how to change them to the right stream ! That is NO excuse! You might well be flogged by the powers that be. |
|
|
|
Post by liane on Jul 7, 2023 13:12:49 GMT -5
Sorry about putting the graphs in the wrong Subject - I don't know how to change them to the right stream ! No worries - I took care of it. Thanks for the graphs!
|
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 8, 2023 7:30:29 GMT -5
When I asked the question we had no idea who filed the application. I later posted MNKD did. My point was nothing would have stopped Peter from filling his own patent after he left the company if MNKD did not. Why they waited 8 years I have no idea when the work was done in 2007. I doubt it was an "intellectual property sweep" but more of a question from Al after Peter left asking whatever happened to the TS GLP1 work Peter had done. Why they abandoned it, I can only guess. What we do know is they refiled in 12/2022. What we also know is this is not currently on any MNKD pipeline slide. Don't guess why it was abandoned, read the correspondence. You seem fixated on the idea that Richardson in some way has rights to this work. He doesn't. This is about property rights. Mannkind paid for the work and it's theirs to do with as they want. If I buy a car and leave it in the yard for the next 20 years at no point do any of the workers who built it have the right to claim it as theirs. The same applies to intellectual property - it remains theirs until they sell it. I am in no way fixated on Richardson having any rights to this. What I wanted to know was who submitted the patent and I answered my own question. Its was MNKD. We also know MNKD refilled 12/2022. What I am fixated on is I remember both Peter and Al being so excited about this before the Exubera cancer scare in 2007 and MNKD's cash crunch. Why? What I am also fixated on is Albert Bourla thinking the "oral" diet market is a $90B market. What I am also fixated on is Mike did not seem to know anything about this last year, MNKD refilled the patent in 12/2022 but I have yet to see it on any of Mike's pipeline charts for an investigative study. Now, I am some what fixated on the new form 4 fillings from MNKD showing Mike selling stock for the last few months. What I would like to see is a proof of concept for native glp1 and liraglutide on TS. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 8, 2023 8:20:37 GMT -5
As far as I know, most patents are not then turned into actual embodiements of the invention. Also, I’ve been told by a patent attorney that 3 to 5 years is the average time between filining an application, and an application grant, if a patent is granted. Obviously, some happen in shorter and longer time frames. Filing in 2022 would mean you should expect to see a patent, if one is granted, between 2025 and 2027. I don’t know how much the grant of a patent has to do with the decision to move forward in earnest with a patent embodiement. If it’s tightly tied, you likely won’t hear anything for awhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 8, 2023 9:29:36 GMT -5
As far as I know, most patents are not then turned into actual embodiments of the invention. Also, I’ve been told by a patent attorney that 3 to 5 years is the average time between filing an application, and an application grant, if a patent is granted. Obviously, some happen in shorter and longer time frames. Filing in 2022 would mean you should expect to see a patent, if one is granted, between 2025 and 2027. I don’t know how much the grant of a patent has to do with the decision to move forward in earnest with a patent embodiment. If it’s tightly tied, you likely won’t hear anything for awhile. Typically patents are never turned into a product, not least because most of them wouldn't stand close scrutiny (look what happened to UTHR's patents they used on LQDA) but they can delay or complicate a competitor's path to market, again UTHR and LQDA. Alternately they can be sold to patent trolls who use them to extort money from companies. Defensively they can be used to counter patent attack, back in the day IBM was the master of that strategy with huge numbers of patents under their control. Your timeline looks right. I had one patent filed where I was several companies down the line when it was approved. If you intend to use the patent then you wouldn't wait for approval because you want to get facts on the ground. The longer you wait the higher the chance that it leaks and you get competitors. Eventually you will get the patent, but now the lines are blurred and they can try to claim prior art so defending it gets a lot harder. This is why this particular patent will never be used in my opinion - the abandoned filing exposes the workings so now anyone can pick it up. To compound that the Chinese have already shown FDKP used to deliver drugs so there is an issue with prior art right there. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 8, 2023 10:04:40 GMT -5
Don't guess why it was abandoned, read the correspondence. You seem fixated on the idea that Richardson in some way has rights to this work. He doesn't. This is about property rights. Mannkind paid for the work and it's theirs to do with as they want. If I buy a car and leave it in the yard for the next 20 years at no point do any of the workers who built it have the right to claim it as theirs. The same applies to intellectual property - it remains theirs until they sell it. I am in no way fixated on Richardson having any rights to this. What I wanted to know was who submitted the patent and I answered my own question. Its was MNKD. We also know MNKD refilled 12/2022. What I am fixated on is I remember both Peter and Al being so excited about this before the Exubera cancer scare in 2007 and MNKD's cash crunch. Why? What I am also fixated on is Albert Bourla thinking the "oral" diet market is a $90B market. What I am also fixated on is Mike did not seem to know anything about this last year, MNKD refilled the patent in 12/2022 but I have yet to see it on any of Mike's pipeline charts for an investigative study. Now, I am some what fixated on the new form 4 fillings from MNKD showing Mike selling stock for the last few months. What I would like to see is a proof of concept for native glp1 and liraglutide on TS. Actually this was in development long after 2007, it was only discontinued in 2010. Mannkind had a variant of it, MK180, that targeted obesity so they know how this behaves with meals. The issue they saw with TS delivered GLP-1 was that it didn't delay stomach emptying which is going to kill the satiety that makes people eat less. I am not that surprised because the fast clearance removed the block that delayed stomach emptying. In other words they have done the exploratory work to know that this doesn't work so they are unlikely to waste money by repeating it hence they abandoned the project in which was one of their better periods for funding. |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 9, 2023 6:56:44 GMT -5
Well that's very interesting. I can't find anything on MK180. Can you provide a link?
And they did this with liraglutide too and the results were not good?
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 9, 2023 11:30:43 GMT -5
Well that's very interesting. I can't find anything on MK180. Can you provide a link? And they did this with liraglutide too and the results were not good? I misspelt it. It was MKC180 and the comparator was exenatide. Now you have the right spelling Google should find it! The issue was that GLP-1 did not significantly slow gastric emptying compared to exenatide. That's hardly surprising though as it's a well known problem given the half life of GLP-1. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 9, 2023 12:00:34 GMT -5
I am in no way fixated on Richardson having any rights to this. What I wanted to know was who submitted the patent and I answered my own question. Its was MNKD. We also know MNKD refilled 12/2022. What I am fixated on is I remember both Peter and Al being so excited about this before the Exubera cancer scare in 2007 and MNKD's cash crunch. Why? What I am also fixated on is Albert Bourla thinking the "oral" diet market is a $90B market. What I am also fixated on is Mike did not seem to know anything about this last year, MNKD refilled the patent in 12/2022 but I have yet to see it on any of Mike's pipeline charts for an investigative study. Now, I am some what fixated on the new form 4 fillings from MNKD showing Mike selling stock for the last few months. What I would like to see is a proof of concept for native glp1 and liraglutide on TS. Actually this was in development long after 2007, it was only discontinued in 2010. Mannkind had a variant of it, MK180, that targeted obesity so they know how this behaves with meals. The issue they saw with TS delivered GLP-1 was that it didn't delay stomach emptying which is going to kill the satiety that makes people eat less. I am not that surprised because the fast clearance removed the block that delayed stomach emptying. In other words they have done the exploratory work to know that this doesn't work so they are unlikely to waste money by repeating it hence they abandoned the project in which was one of their better periods for funding. Quote, "Mannkind had a variant of it, MK180, that targeted obesity"I went looking back on the OLD pipeline pages from MNKD that would open or we had copies of. I did not find this. I remember this. MNKD has a compound on its pipeline that said it targeted obesity. I remember. I could not find it to bring it up in print. |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 9, 2023 13:06:48 GMT -5
Well that's very interesting. I can't find anything on MK180. Can you provide a link? And they did this with liraglutide too and the results were not good? I misspelt it. It was MKC180 and the comparator was exenatide. Now you have the right spelling Google should find it! The issue was that GLP-1 did not significantly slow gastric emptying compared to exenatide. That's hardly surprising though as it's a well known problem given the half life of GLP-1. OK - do you have a link to the study results or any additional information? You seem to know a bit about this study. Based on your response I am assuming they did not load Bydureon on TS. I am also assuming they did not load Victoza on TS. Peppy - Mr. Google shows MKC-180 in this 10k filing along with MKC253. investors.mannkindcorp.com/node/11476/html |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 9, 2023 14:03:40 GMT -5
I misspelt it. It was MKC180 and the comparator was exenatide. Now you have the right spelling Google should find it! The issue was that GLP-1 did not significantly slow gastric emptying compared to exenatide. That's hardly surprising though as it's a well known problem given the half life of GLP-1. OK - do you have a link to the study results or any additional information? You seem to know a bit about this study. Based on your response I am assuming they did not load Bydureon on TS. I am also assuming they did not load Victoza on TS. Peppy - Mr. Google shows MKC-180 in this 10k filing along with MKC253. investors.mannkindcorp.com/node/11476/htmlThat's pretty much what I know. For the benefit of others here is the relevant section from the 10K filing Sayhey found. A year later this was was abandoned. (My emphasis on the most interesting sections) We conducted a second Phase 1 trial to assess the effect of MKC253 on post-meal glucose excursions in patients with type 2 diabetes. A total of 15 subjects were each given MKC253, placebo or exenatide on different days and followed for a four-hour period after each administration. In both fasted and fed subjects, inhalation of MKC253 produced a rise in insulin levels that peaked within 10 — 15 minutes. In fasted subjects, this increase in insulin led to a rapid decrease in blood glucose concentrations within 30 minutes, with a slower decline over the next 3.5 hours. Subjects who were fed and given MKC253 displayed a blunting of the initial post-meal glucose excursion for approximately 30-50 minutes, depending on the dose. In the same subjects, exenatide stimulated insulin release but produced much lower peak levels than those produced by MKC253 in either the fed or fasted state. Nonetheless, over the four-hour study period, exenatide also produced mean decreases in blood glucose concentrations. This observation may be due to the fact that exenatide had a profound effect on gastric emptying, with approximately 90% of the meal retained in the stomach at four hours after meal ingestion. In contrast, MKC253 did not have any overall effect on gastric emptying. Until we have conducted a full program of clinical trials, we will not be able to reach definitive conclusions about the potential safety or efficacy of MKC253.The first highlighted part were the drugs involved; MKC253 (GLP-1 on TS), placebo (probably pure TS), and exenatide (Byetta as Bydureon wasn't released for another 7 years.) The second highlight is why GLP-1 on TS will never be used - it doesn't slow gastric emptying. That's game over. |
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on Jul 9, 2023 14:23:13 GMT -5
Sounding like Mannkind's leadership knew what they were doing at the time. It was apparently worth a look. Wasn't viable. Moved along. Good.
|
|
