|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 25, 2023 16:17:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Jul 25, 2023 16:27:25 GMT -5
A couple posters on StockTwits commenting that Mike confirmed that Imatinib is off the table. I can't find a transcript anywhere to confirm that. The only thing I could find was the May 2022 conference call where he said it in the works and we should be hearing more about it in the months ahead. If anyone has a quote where he said it is off the table, that would be helpful. I thought he said in an earnings call a year or so ago that Imatinib was discontinued as it was considered a distraction. |
|
|
|
Post by liane on Jul 25, 2023 16:32:59 GMT -5
A couple posters on StockTwits commenting that Mike confirmed that Imatinib is off the table. I can't find a transcript anywhere to confirm that. The only thing I could find was the May 2022 conference call where he said it in the works and we should be hearing more about it in the months ahead. If anyone has a quote where he said it is off the table, that would be helpful. Any idea if the posters are reliable or just the usual, um, suspects, that prevent me from visiting stocktwits? Since I have blocked all the usual suspects there, and I also see nothing on ST about Imatinib being off the table, I have to deduce it is the usual suspects who are spewing this. |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Jul 25, 2023 16:59:31 GMT -5
I saw the posts liane. One of the posters might very well be in your “usual suspects” blocked category, but I doubt the other one is.
|
|
|
|
Post by markado on Jul 25, 2023 18:15:34 GMT -5
For as informed as we all attempt to be on this board, it is telling that we are collectively in the dark or confused on this item. It is an example as to why I desire more transparency, clarity and communication from our C suite. If it is off the table, it would be helpful to understand why. It would also be helpful to understand why we would bother to pursue it over any of the 35+ other molecules that have been proven could ride technosphere that we haven't yet advanced...
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 25, 2023 18:23:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 25, 2023 18:31:19 GMT -5
For as informed as we all attempt to be on this board, it is telling that we are collectively in the dark or confused on this item. It is an example as to why I desire more transparency, clarity and communication from our C suite. If it is off the table, it would be helpful to understand why. It would also be helpful to understand why we would bother to pursue it over any of the 35+ other molecules that have been proven could ride technosphere that we haven't yet advanced... Here is what is in the current pipeline and its not there - edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/b9xq3vfi If something is under a non-disclosure it is not going to be revealed until the correct time. The reason why we would pursue something over the 35+ other molecules that have been proven could ride technosphere that we haven't yet advanced is money. Why did Tyvaso pop to the top - Martine came in with money. If Albert Bourla showed up with $10M for the initial research on his glp1s with a potential deal like what was done with Tyvaso DPI I am sure it would pop to the top of the list |
|
limo
Researcher
Posts: 82
|
Post by limo on Jul 26, 2023 2:33:03 GMT -5
sorry to spoil the party but MC did mention on the Q4 call that Imatinib was being shelved to allow them to focus on the scale up of Tyvaso dpi. However both UTHR and MNKD have since included mentioned of Nintenib on their presentations since.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellodolly on Jul 26, 2023 5:18:36 GMT -5
As I linked to the site and went to the "Document" tab, scrolled down to the examiners "Non-Final Rejection" it looks as if their patent application is currently not valid as of May 17, 2023. Not sure if they have a case to appeal to the Patent Office? They get up to 6 months to respond to the non-final rejection. Its possible that they could amend the claims and/or argue as to why the rejection is not valid. The PTO would then reconsider and either allow the application or issue another rejection in which case they would get another 6 months to respond. Plus, they (MNKD and UTHR) withdrew many of the claims. Not looking at it before this reply but if memory serves me, claims 19-27 were withdrawn, claims 1-17 were denied leaving only 18 as uncontested. |
|
|
|
Post by markado on Jul 26, 2023 9:21:27 GMT -5
For as informed as we all attempt to be on this board, it is telling that we are collectively in the dark or confused on this item. It is an example as to why I desire more transparency, clarity and communication from our C suite. If it is off the table, it would be helpful to understand why. It would also be helpful to understand why we would bother to pursue it over any of the 35+ other molecules that have been proven could ride technosphere that we haven't yet advanced... Here is what is in the current pipeline and its not there - edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/b9xq3vfi If something is under a non-disclosure it is not going to be revealed until the correct time. The reason why we would pursue something over the 35+ other molecules that have been proven could ride technosphere that we haven't yet advanced is money. Why did Tyvaso pop to the top - Martine came in with money. If Albert Bourla showed up with $10M for the initial research on his glp1s with a potential deal like what was done with Tyvaso DPI I am sure it would pop to the top of the list Who is tasked, then, with identifying the current owners of the 35+ molecules, or potential partner payers, as they may own the non-inhalable market version and want the inhalable? Who should be developing that out, quantifying the market values of each and pursuing them from a value to mannkind prioritized basis? Lack of money is an excuse. Lack of drive and creative problem solving holding back market cap value is a liability. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 26, 2023 10:00:42 GMT -5
Clofazimine (to treat Non-Tuberculosis Mycobacterium [NTM]) is on first. Nintedanib (to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF]) is on second.
It wouldn't matter if there were 2 other molecules or 100 up for consideration. That's what's in the queue, and those are going to be matriculating through the pipeline processes for the next 2 years.
sayhey24 is advocating for an investigation into TechnoSphere version of a GLP-1 analog. If they started last year, it would most likely still be #3 in the pipeline, at best. There's been a robust debate between sayhey24 and agedhippie about that investigation. Very informative.
I think there is way more to what it means to investigate candidates and make them an official part of the pipeline than most people (including me) appreciate.
|
|
|
|
Post by markado on Jul 26, 2023 12:07:56 GMT -5
Clofazimine (to treat Non-Tuberculosis Mycobacterium [NTM]) is on first. Nintedanib (to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF]) is on second. It wouldn't matter if there were 2 other molecules or 100 up for consideration. That's what's in the queue, and those are going to be matriculating through the pipeline processes for the next 2 years. sayhey24 is advocating for an investigation into TechnoSphere version of a GLP-1 analog. If they started last year, it would most likely still be #3 in the pipeline, at best. There's been a robust debate between sayhey24 and agedhippie about that investigation. Very informative. I think there is way more to what it means to investigate candidates and make them an official part of the pipeline than most people (including me) appreciate. This is why some advocate dividing MNKD into three units - endocrine, orphan lung and Technosphere development. This would allow these units to focus more directly on their respective charges vs. suboptimizing as a result of co-opted or competing priorities and choices. |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Jul 26, 2023 13:07:26 GMT -5
Here is what is in the current pipeline and its not there - edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/b9xq3vfi The reason why we would pursue something over the 35+ other molecules that have been proven could ride technosphere that we haven't yet advanced is money. Why did Tyvaso pop to the top - Martine came in with money. If Albert Bourla showed up with $10M for the initial research on his glp1s with a potential deal like what was done with Tyvaso DPI I am sure it would pop to the top of the list Who is tasked, then, with identifying the current owners of the 35+ molecules, or potential partner payers, as they may own the non-inhalable market version and want the inhalable? Who should be developing that out, quantifying the market values of each and pursuing them from a value to mannkind prioritized basis? Lack of money is an excuse. Lack of drive and creative problem solving holding back market cap value is a liability. Excellent questions markado. Can anyone here answer them definitively? |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Jul 26, 2023 14:56:55 GMT -5
sorry to spoil the party but MC did mention on the Q4 call that Imatinib was being shelved to allow them to focus on the scale up of Tyvaso dpi. However both UTHR and MNKD have since included mentioned of Nintenib on their presentations since. You are correct limo, i found it in the Q4 call when according to the transcript mike said: "We actually discontinued the development of Imatinib, aka MannKind-701, as one of these we tried to do this year come in and bring more focus and get rid of distracting things that weren't going to move forward in the way that we expected." Of course we know transcripts can be incorrect as some folks claim about certain transcribed statements ("rest and grow" = "invest in growth" anyone?). And the sentence above is not the most coherently worded, so perhaps could be open to different interpretations. But i read it as saying Imatinib development was considered a "distracting thing" and thus discontinued. Seems like Imatinib had potential so hopefully someone has a plausible alternative take on it. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 26, 2023 16:48:53 GMT -5
I think the phrase "weren't going to move forward in the way that we expected" is also a clue. Filing for patents isn't free (and does benefit taxpayers) and typically a company who goes to the expense of developing and filing expects the application to be approved (or why file?). There is considerable back-and-forth as a patent moves through the inspection and grant processes, and while I suppose it's possible Imatinib could have been productized without having been granted a patent, it's fair to speculate negative feedback on patent-ability from the USPTO could have been an inhibiting factor.
|
|
