Receptor Life Sciences deal valued at $102.3 million

[cm5]

See the TechnoVax, Mintaka Foundation, and LifeSci Partners, LLC Thread started by mango

Jun 5, 2016 16:19:46 GMT -4 cm5 said:

Seems to be the webpage for Receptor Life Sciences--

tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86898208&docId=OOA20160529080028#docIndex=0&page=1

Jun 5, 2016 16:37:10 GMT -4 cm5 said:

Here's the report about melatonin seen above in trademark application--

Medical implications of melatonin: receptor-mediated and receptor-independent actions
Reiter RJ*, Tan D-X, Manchester LC, Pilar Terron M, Flores LJ, Koppisepi S
Department of Cellular and Structural Biology, The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA
Advances in Medical Sciences Medical implications of melatonin: receptor-mediated and receptor-independent actions · Vol. 52 · 2007


The functional versatility and diversity of melatonin has exceeded everyone’s expectations. The evidence is substantial that melatonin has multiple receptor-mediated and receptor--independent actions. Considering the unexpectedly widespread
distribution of cellular membrane receptors as well as the existence of nuclear binding sites/receptors and the fact that some of melatonin’s actions are receptor-independent means that melatonin likely functions in every cell with which it comes in contact.

This is highlighted by the fact that there are no morphophysiological barriers to melatonin, e.g., the blood-brain barrier.

In addition to its widespread actions, melatonin synthesis occurs in widely diverse tissues with its production not being relegated to the pineal gland. This should not be unexpected given that it is present throughout the animal kingdom including species that lack a pineal gland, e.g., insects, and in single cell organisms. In this review, only a few of melatonin’s effects that involve the interaction of the indoleamine with receptors are described.

These functions include the control of seasonal reproduction, modulation of sleep processes and influences on
bone growth and osteoporosis.

Among the actions of melatonin that are likely receptor independent and that are reviewed herein include its ability to neutralize free radicals which leads to a reduction in cataract formation, reducing oxidative stress due to exposure to hyperbaric hyperoxia, ameliorating hyperthyroidism and abating the toxicity of sepsis and septic shock.

These actions alone speak to the diversity of beneficial effects of melatonin; however, the review is no way near exhaustive
in terms of what melatonin is capable of doing.

Because of its ubiquitous benefits, the pharmaceutical industry is developing melatonin analogues which interact with melatonin receptors. Clearly, the intent of the drugs is to take advantage of some of melatonin’s numerous beneficial effects.

[peppy]

Look at the definitions:

Quote from above; Seems to be the webpage for Receptor Life Sciences--
tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86898208&docId=OOA20160529080028#docIndex=0&page=1

[fofos2000i]

The question is whether those attachments definitions / use of "receptor" mark come from USPTO to support their claim that RLS must clarify more or whether these have been provided by RLS ?

I think the former

In any case RLS would need to provide more public info

[Deleted]

Ehhh at this point until they start earning money from RLS IMO its a waste of breath. It will be a welcomed surprise when it does but at this point my investment is not based on RLS its just Afrezza.

[Deleted]

Jun 6, 2016 10:38:06 GMT -5 fofos2000i said:

The question is whether those attachments definitions / use of "receptor" mark come from USPTO to support their claim that RLS must clarify more or whether these have been provided by RLS ?

i thought the same too.. that USPTO wants RLS to differentiate themselves 

[mnkdfann]

Apr 12, 2016 16:38:47 GMT -5 dreamboatcruise said:

Apr 12, 2016 14:51:26 GMT -5 cathode said:

That website is not going to have any more information than what has been gathered on our message board.

Did we know the value of the deal?  Clicking on it under deal details it makes it appear as if there may be more details if one has a subscription.  I don't suppose anyone has bothered to see if the free subscription trial actually gives access to more info.  Quite frankly I'm a little skeptical that they would have any financial details.

The document is available for purchase for $35, no subscription necessary. The website looks legit. It seems pretty sophisticated and has quite a bit of content on its other pages.

I don't suppose anyone here ever purchased the document in question?

One can pay by credit card, so it should be possible to challenge any charge with your credit card issuer if the document is a rip off etc.

(I would purchase it myself, but I just challenged some credit card charges recently and I don't want to risk having to do so again quite so soon.)

[matt]

Jul 9, 2016 21:26:59 GMT -5 mnkdfann said:

The document is available for purchase for $35, no subscription necessary. The website looks legit. It seems pretty sophisticated and has quite a bit of content on its other pages.

You can save your $35. BioCentury is a legit publication, I had a subscription for years back when my job was looking for the next new thing in healthcare for a Fortune 100 company, but there probably isn't much new content there. Mostly they take what is already out in the public domain, organize it, and republish the information. In many cases their source of information is the same press releases that everybody sees. The value of their information is generally low unless you are totally clueless about a topic and are starting from a blank sheet of paper.

If you want real insight to private and public biotech companies, the "go to" industry publication is BioWorld. Most of their content is original, they track EVERYBODY in the industry, publish every business day with an e-mail update in the afternoon, and have global coverage. As you might expect, it does not come cheap with the most reasonable subscription costing several thousand dollars a year.

[seanismorris]

I checked out the BioWorld site. Matt's not kidding it's expensive.

I like the quote on the front page.

"Investors will crush you if you have less than a year of cash." So true...

[mnholdem]

I'm not sure if this was ever posted, but it does appear to confirm what the inhalers will be used for:

Source: trademarks.justia.com/868/98/receptor-life-86898208.html

[heymate]

"Non-Final Action Mailed means that the examiner has found issues with the application and outlining them in written form. Such issues can range from simple changes to the application to outright refusals for various reasons (e.g., where the application is confusingly similar to another mark already filed or registered)

The Applicant has an opportunity to either: 1) satisfy all the outstanding issues listed in the action, or 2) submit arguments refuting the examiner’s contentions or refusals.

Applicant’s generally have 6 months from the date the final refusal is mailed to respond. However, Applicant’s should review the office action itself to confirm the response deadline.

If the Applicant submits a response and fails to either: 1) address all the issues listed, or 2) persuade the examiner on any of the issues raised, the examiner in most cases will issue a final refusal."

[slapshot]

(from USPTO TSDR Case Viewer)

Summary of Issues:


Refusal: Mark is Merely Descriptive of Goods and Services

Identification/Classification of Goods/Services Requires Amendment

Disclaimer Required


TRADEMARK ACT §2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MARK IS MERELY DESCRIPTIVE

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark, RECEPTOR LIFE SCIENCES, merely describes a feature, characteristic, purpose and field of use of applicant’s services; i.e., scientific and medical research and information, and pharmaceutical products. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.


A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods and/or services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 1217-18, 3 USPQ2d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, a mark that identifies a group of users to whom an applicant directs its goods and/or services is also merely descriptive. TMEP §1209.03(i); see In re Planalytics, Inc., 70 USPQ2d 1453, 1454 (TTAB 2004).

Please see the attached dictionary definitions of “receptor” (“a nerve ending that senses changes in light, temperature, pressure, etc., and causes the body to react in a particular way; a cell or group of cells that receives stimuli; a chemical group or molecule (as a protein) on the cell surface or in the cell interior that has an affinity for a specific chemical group, molecule, or virus; a cellular entity (as a beta-receptor or alpha-receptor) that is a postulated intermediary between a chemical agent (as a neurohormone) acting on nervous tissue and the physiological or pharmacological response,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) and “life sciences” (“a branch of science (as biology, medicine, and sometimes anthropology or sociology) that deals with living organisms and life processes,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary), and the additional online usage examples demonstrating that the term “receptor” is commonly used to reference goods and services in the medical, scientific and pharmaceutical industries and fields to refer to types of cells that are the subject of the goods or services. Further, “life sciences” merely indicates the industry/field in which the applicant operates, making this wording descriptive of applicant as the source of relevant goods and services. The applicant’s identification of services indicates that it is providing scientific, medical and pharmaceutical goods and services that may be understood to act on the types of cells known as receptors.


If applicant elects to proceed, applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

IDENTIFICATION OF GOODS REQUIRES AMENDMENT/CLASS 5 ONLY

The wording “pharmaceutical preparations for human use; inhalers sold pre-filled with pharmaceutical preparations” in the identification of goods in Class 5 must be clarified because it is indefinite. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01. Applicant must specify the nature and intended purpose and use of these goods.

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.

Applicant may adopt the following identification of goods in Class 5, if accurate. TMEP §1402.01.

Class 5

Pharmaceutical preparations for human use for {indicate intended use, e.g., the treatment of skin disorders, use in chemotherapy, treating diabetes}; inhalers sold pre-filled with pharmaceutical preparations, namely, {indicate specific pharmaceutical preparations} ; plant extracts for pharmaceutical purposes

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

Applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “LIFE SCIENCES” apart from the mark as shown because, as evidenced by the applicant’s identification of [goods services] and the above-referenced attached evidence it merely describes the field in which the applicant operates. See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).

A “disclaimer” is a statement that applicant does not claim exclusive rights to an unregistrable component of a mark. TMEP §1213. A disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark or otherwise affect the appearance of the applied-for mark. See TMEP §1213.10.

The Office can require an applicant to disclaim an unregistrable part of a mark consisting of particular wording, symbols, numbers, design elements, or combinations thereof. 15 U.S.C. §1056(a). Under Trademark Act Section 2(e), the Office can refuse registration of an entire mark if the entire mark is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, or primarily geographically descriptive of the goods and/or services. 15 U.S.C. §1052(e). Thus, the Office may require an applicant to disclaim a portion of a mark that, when used in connection with the goods and/or services, is merely descriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, primarily geographically descriptive, or otherwise unregistrable (e.g., generic). See TMEP §§1213, 1213.03.

[peppy]

this is old news slap shot.

we are waiting for RLS reply. They had 6 months.

probably three months left.