Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Your level of incuriosity of a DCVax-Direct patent granted out to June 2036 in a country of 1.4 billion people followed a couple days later by a Native Indian billionaire venture capitalist taking a board position with NWBO is par for the course.
They didn’t put him on the board because he is supposedly a beaten down investor.
Think about it. The last time that board expanded, it was to reward Dr. Malik for bringing Woodford on board. After the blow up with Woodford, the board didn’t expand for many years.
A couple days after we received the DCVax-Direct patent in India, Jerry retired and Pat took his place.
Not a coincidence, imo.
He’ll be at the next ASM or whatever upcoming shareholder meeting that might occur before then, imo.
They trust him. That’s not an inner circle easily welcomed into.
LP is better than CD.
Geniuth.
Don’t believe either of you would know, and not being on the “CHM Slate” can even be better than being on it, or better than being on it in a later month.
Anyway, it’s all speculation.
It’s already contemplated in part of NWBO’s patents and patent applications. It was also discussed here long ago.
Maybe you should have read the entire thread.
Yeah, I think these chess moves were planned out further in advance than people might think. Don’t forget, in addition to NWBO getting a DCVax-Direct patent (method B+** as DocL and I like to call it) in India out to June 2036, and in addition to Mr. Sarma joining the board two days later, India is, as far as I know, the only country practicing commercial Intratumoral dendritic therapy against cancer with an Indian Company, albeit with an (arguably) less ideal product and less internationally recognized scientific support, and less internationally recognized patent, the potential symbiosis of a M@A of some sort is possible, and in addition to that, India has a closed system blood collection, leukapheresis transport system company that NWBO utilized, and probably still does. Can’t remember the name right now.
** Dr. Bosch said the “B” was for better, and DocL and I have been saying “+” because Dr. Bosch and many scientist collaborators improved the selection and narrowed manufacturing ranges since that time. Making it far more potent. They also learned how to get some suppressed patient pbmc boosted into fully functioning partially matured DCs.
Interesting. A couple days ago, we received a DCVax-Direct patent granted out to June 2036 in India (1.4 billion people), and Mr. Sarma, who received his undergraduate in India, moved onto our board. Looks like he was one of those young geniuses back in the early computing transitional launch days. Good person to have on the board for multiple reasons.
Your bracket is already broken.
Regardless of trader manipulation, resolution is much closer at hand, with major
hurdles behind us.
🔑Now you’re misleading what the defense incorrectly stated.
Here is what they mistated
….and the new allegations and exhibits across NWBO’s 482-page
pleading (of which 144 pages are entirely new)…
If you are counting exhibit pages as well, you are arguing for the plaintiff, because defendants were mistakingly thinking they had to deal with 482 pages of modified complaint plus exhibits. You are pointing out it’s only 158 combined and limited to one section of the complaint (aka: loss causation). Maybe you should sign on to plaintiff’s schedule, being that you pointed out, combined, it’s three times shorter than defendants suggest.
What’s your point? Those are exhibits supporting the loss causation section. The body of the complaint only changed 17 pages restricted to the loss causation section, and most of those were previously argued?
Why would you say that, those are exhibits supporting the 17 page loss causation section.
🔔New filings. Posner explains the refiling contains the exact same info in exhibit one, as the first amended complaint, and plaintiffs had inadvertently filed the old exhibit 1 copy from the original complaint.
In other words, nothing changed in exhibit one from the first amended complaint to the second amended (resubmitted with intended Exhibit 1 copy) complaint, which the clerk allowed them to refile exhibit one from the first amended complaint in the second amended complaint filing.
Aside from that nonissue, Laura Posner pointed out there are only 17 pages difference in the second amended complaint and all of that is specifically restricted to the loss causation section, and most of it has already been litigated.
In other words, unless the judge likes spring breaks, Defendant’s request for extension should be denied, imo.
I think it’s highly likely NICE had that type of chit chat with NWBO back in 2018, and guess what, NWBO collected five more years data and developed ECA to avoid the inevitable pitfalls of cross-over efficacy.
They stated some of those planned combos are with outside third parties.
Dear Col. Nathan R. Jessup, please quit justifying and encouraging the illegal behavior known as spoofing.
Despite submitting an maa submission just before the first of the year, despite progress with NICE, despite adding a DCVax Direct patent that goes out to June 2036 in a country with 1.5 billion people, the pressure on decreasing PPS accelerated. Despite learning tha NWBO had increased its intellectual property by in licensing. Despite NWBO confirming it plans to proceed with combination trials after it handles maa inspections.
For there to be a contempt finding, after the preliminary injunction was put in place, you’d have to show one (or some small number) significant spoofing violation, imo.
Spoofing is illegal. If you are trying to encourage illegal behavior, that’s quite interesting.
That’s dumb logic. Of course it could have “officially occurred.”
I don’t think that’s how it would work. I found this online at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/injunctive_relief#:~:text=The%20party%20seeking%20a%20preliminary,%3B%20and%20(4)%20that%20the
Injunctive relief, also known as an injunction, is a remedy which restrains a party from doing certain acts or requires a party to act in a certain way. It is generally only available when there is no other remedy at law and irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted. The purpose of this form of relief is to prevent future wrong.
Such orders, when issued before a judgement, are known as preliminary injunctions that can be punished as contempt if not obeyed. Due to its coercive force, a grant of injunctive relief is subject to immediate review by an appellate court. The standard for review is an abuse of discretion. As such, an injunctive relief will be overturned if the appellate court finds that the trial court issued the relief based on an misapplication of the law or an erroneous factual finding.
Injunctive relief is generally only granted in extreme circumstances. The party seeking a preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate: (1) irreparable injury in the absence of such an order; (2) that the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs the harm to the opposing party resulting from the order; (3) that the injunction is not adverse to public interest; and (4) that the moving party has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. In considering these factors, courts have been described to apply a "sliding scale" approach where the more likely a movant will succeed on the merits, the less irreparable harm (to the movant) needs to be shown in granting the injunction. There is no mathematical means of balancing these factors, therefore, the "sliding scale" approach is based on a court's intuitive judgement. It is worth noting that courts will not find irreparable harm where the damages sustained are calculable. New York has held that in such situations, monetary damages serve as an adequate remedy.
Under the Federal scheme, Rule 65 codifies the requirements for injunctive relief.
Don’t knock peat sake until you’ve tried it. If you can get past the earthy aspect, you’ll be a convert.
As of yet.
“….it's fun to pretend when [Mike’s] got nothing better to do, not because it's real.” — FeMike (The rambler)
I didn’t say I agreed with him, I was just bashing you, because you bash other people. If you would have initially picked up on what I was stating, it is highly unlikely an 80 day response (which may or may not include an RFI) has even been written yet, or if written, less likely still that it has been digested yet. Very unlikely, but not impossible.
In the meantime, traders trade on this moment when very confidential information is super unlikely to leak, but traders create the impression, through PPS pressure, that a leak has occurred, imo.
FEMike is a trader. In the mornings he occasionally likes to make a big deal over premarket bids and asks on the NWBO otc. That’s a trader’s ploy, but I assume he must have made coin over it afterwards on occasion, or he’d not go back to it.
It’s clear to at least seven other posters and myself.
Your reading comprehension has greatly declined. Get some sleep.
Actually, if January 2 was when MHRA confirmed validation, then 80 days would fall on March 22.
In other words, while I would not be surprised if MHRA got their 80 day evaluation done a couple/few days early, it does seem to overlap with the March CHM meeting dates.
My guess is NWBO is in the exact midst of finding out next steps this week.
The price pressure reminds me of the traders that like to try psychological ploys, such as start taking a stock price downward when currently publicly unknowable major decisions are occurring, in order to give the impression a leak has occurred that it’s not so good. I don’t believe anybody at NWBO or their contractors that read the 80 day review would take any chances on leaking it to anyone, but the impression is trying to be created by traders nonetheless, imo.
? No, it just looks like they needed to resubmit because there was some PDF transmission error.
I don’t know when this first became the most likely scenario, but it appears any new trial that NWBO initiates from here on out, will utilize Eden system type manufacturing. IMO. While announcements for such trials should happen substantially sooner than their initiation, I suspect closed system automated manufacturing (commercial grade) will be the only standardized method for producing DCVax products utilized in trials. JMHO. Time has a funny way of explaining new (likely) realities.
Any possible current planned buyer might get swooped if they continue to dilly dally.
That DCVax-Direct patent (aka partially matured), for treating solid tumors, which expires in June 2036, has now been granted in at least the following countries:
AU2016286112A1
2023-02-16
Granted (Australia)
2021-09-21
US11124768B2
Granted (United States)
JP2021191885A
2021-12-22
Granted (Japan)
IN201847003183
March 18, 2024
Granted (India)
India. DCVax-Direct Patent Grant. For solid Tumors. Goes out to about 2035 or 2036.
$NWBO patent granted on March 18, 2024 - IN201847003183 🇮🇳: "Optimally activated dendritic cells that induce an improved or increased anti-tumor immune response"https://t.co/8Sbs08Ndd5 pic.twitter.com/TuW6Ad6e9P
— Henry (@HenryMuney) March 18, 2024