|
|
Post by peppy on Feb 1, 2016 7:57:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mindovermatter on Feb 1, 2016 8:39:13 GMT -5
The funny thing about patents is that they are only as valuable as the products that are actually making any type of revenue or in a field where other groups are trying the same thing. We currently see that TS patents are not yet valued as much as we had hope they would be. Why do I say that and what proof can I put forward to make my case? RLS deal had absolutely no upfront money attached to it. Technosphere has the opportunity to prove its value but the drug being used has to be properly marketed. For all that is good in the world, let us hope that RLS and Mannkind can put TS on the map and change history on how we get our meds. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 1, 2016 8:57:52 GMT -5
Patents have no value by themselves; a patent only accrues value when it protects a successful new product from competitors. Pharmas generally have many patents around the same drug (composition of matter, method of manufacture, method of use, etc.) because if one patent is found to be invalid, there are backups. A lawyer friend of mine used to point out that a weak patent was just a lousy patent, but a collection of weak patents was an intellectual property portfolio. He was only half joking.
One thing that leaps out from the patent you linked is the priority date, we are already nine years into the patent life. Bringing a drug through the FDA process averages eight years, so if they have done no further work on this patent to date, the potential period of market exclusivity is short as the company would be at year 17 on average. It depends on the situation, but patents with no significant development more than five years after the priority date are probably not going to be valuable just because of the patent clock.
|
|
|
|
Post by slapshot on Feb 1, 2016 9:12:45 GMT -5
Patents have no value by themselves; a patent only accrues value when it protects a successful new product from competitors. Pharmas generally have many patents around the same drug (composition of matter, method of manufacture, method of use, etc.) because if one patent is found to be invalid, there are backups. A lawyer friend of mine used to point out that a weak patent was just a lousy patent, but a collection of weak patents was an intellectual property portfolio. He was only half joking. One thing that leaps out from the patent you linked is the priority date, we are already nine years into the patent life. Bringing a drug through the FDA process averages eight years, so if they have done no further work on this patent to date, the potential period of market exclusivity is short as the company would be at year 17 on average. It depends on the situation, but patents with no significant development more than five years after the priority date are probably not going to be valuable just because of the patent clock. Agreed, and just to be complete, the life of the patent is 20 years from the earliest priority date. So if it takes 8 years from now (which seems a bit longer than i expected) to get FDA approval that would leave only 3 years of patent protection. - i should also add that the US patent application for this (as referenced above) has not actually been granted / patented but is still pending |
|
|
|
Post by slapshot on Feb 1, 2016 10:06:24 GMT -5
BTW... Anyone can check the status of patent applications at the USPTO.GOV website using 'public pair' this link probably wont work, cause you wont have the cookies: portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPairso instead, from here: www.uspto.gov/patent select 'pair' then click on 'Check the status of a published application' under 'public pair' you can enter the publication number (20080199485), application number, Patent number, PCT, etc. and view the status/details that are public. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Feb 1, 2016 10:16:51 GMT -5
The fact that MannKind Corporation's Technosphere pulmonary-delivery technology offers such a huge range of applications holds the possibility of the company being able to attract some unconventional forms of financing, such as financing based on future royalties of a certain medicine or class of medicine.
In fact, an example of this type of financing was announced last week by Halozyme Therapeutics
SAN DIEGO, Jan. 26, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALO) today announced that it has closed the previously announced $150 million royalty-backed debt transaction with investment funds managed by Pharmakon Advisors and Athyrium Capital Management. The debt is secured by future royalties of ENHANZE(TM) products, received only from Halozyme's collaborations with Roche and Baxalta.
"With the completion of this non-dilutive financing, we are well funded to initiate our Phase 3 study in pancreatic cancer patients and continue to execute our two pillar strategy in 2016," said Dr. Helen Torley, president and chief executive officer.
Patents carry some value, but it's the applications that fuel the bus. I think that MannKind's proprietary technology translates into a situation for shareholders of lots of fuel just waiting to be delivered through the pipeline. I think that the financing to develop various API(TS) will keep coming.
Receptor Life Sciences will not be the only party interested in developing the benefits inherent in Technosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on Feb 1, 2016 11:02:53 GMT -5
Hopefully RLS will get others interested in TS or they may miss the bus.
|
|
