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.
Would any possible buyout suitor want to nip in the bud LP’s plans for combination trials with several parties because would be acquirer would not want to be tethered by such contracts?
If so, wouldn’t this justify paying a supreme premium above the PPS in order to avoid such tethers?
Any idea why Lovance would finance (211 million) before Market had a chance to weigh in on Friday evening’s approval? What are they expecting after the opening bell, and why?
The nature preprint article is poly-iclc with autologous dc.
Different from:
The others you speak of also include CI.
I see your logic now. Thank you.
Recent movement.
1. Combination patent application in Europe to be granted, includes both DCVax-l (lysate pulsed) and/or DCVax-Direct (partial maturation) with checkpoint inhibitors.
2. Over 60 days since MAA was filed.
3. MHRA and FDA looking at further cooperation.
4. Nature Journal article on DC/poly-iclc combination study nearing publication. Primary completion date for study occurred twenty days ago.
5. Active negotiations with other parties for combination trials going on for over a year, awaiting MAA to be “cemented.”
6. Large pharma struggling to adapt to upcoming patent cliffs.
7. Cohen/Milstein/Posner about to file second amended complaint, and with it, formulaic method to arrive at loss causation.
8. Ihub message board drifting toward speculation on possible suitors and valuations regardless of PPS suppression.
Can you expound on that? Regardless, thanks for your response.
So, let’s pretend a buyout occurs. What is the new pharma likely to do with:
1. NWBO’s Legal case against market makers?
2. The derivative case against NWBO?
I think plaintiffs can also file for summary judgment.
Ask a legal eagle if it will be a judge or jury trial, if, on the rare chance it does not resolve before trial.
“What one woman can do….”
It’s Biosect’s link, not mine. Numbnuts.
Ex and I have gone back and forth on this before.
The U.S. patent application that Ex brought up has a continuance filed, not published, utilized that graph shared by Dr. Liau with Dr. Musella. It has since, uncharacteristically disappeared, the document is no longer accessible.
I’ll look.
Edit : ….patent application that you brought up has a continuance filed….
Dr. Liau is one of the inventors and is on NWBO’s SAB. UCLA is an assignee. NWBO is an assignee. You and someone nicer are from whistle higher? Am I right?
We’ve had this discussion. The U.S. patent that you brought up has a continuance filed, not published, utilized that graph shared by Dr. Liau with Dr. Musella. It has since, uncharacteristically disappeared, the document is no longer accessible.
Here’s some more discussion on that from way back when. I’m certain NWBO must have already known this. Their combo patent application was in 2013/2014.
In short:
#dcvax $nwbo #gbm
— Peter Davis (@peter_brit) February 19, 2024
This simply cannot be overstated as to how important this is.
With known safety concerns relating to CI's already known:
Patterns of toxicity burden for FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors in the United Stateshttps://t.co/bKk3KuVXbn.…
You “wait” for acceptance, I believe MHRA has already confirmed it.
The judge has only now ordered to adopt the magistrate’s recommendations. You are confused. It is now within the 30 day window for plaintiff to file the second amended complaint. The plaintiff’s attorneys have stated in filings that they are prepared to provide the information the magistrate recommended/requested.
The MAA is currently “held” by MHRA.
In cases like most of the stocks you probably invest in, if an maa is not held after 30 days, that means it was not accepted (validated) and a new maa would have to be filed.
Beyond 30 days from submission, MHRA confirmed the DCVax-l maa was being “held” by MHRA.
Inquirig, you are responding to yourself again. Slow down and try to remember when you are changing handles.
MHRA already confirmed the marketing application was filed by NWBO and is currently held by MHRA.
“Sawston and UCLA” — inquirig quoting itself.
On February 16, 2024, the European patent office announced it intends to grant a combination patent NWBO has been seeking, which should last nearly a decade, and instead of celebrating, you go to an ihub
Board for NWBO, which you are not invested in, and try to trash NWBO’s IP progress.
“Just my opinion” — Inquirig
Your opinion is incorrect.
That’s the guy that rarely uses quotes. He’s peculiar that way. I do not get paid to post. In fact, I pay about $12.00 a month to ihub for my membership.
10K coming up.
The European patent office indicated on February 16, 2024 that it intends to grant NWBO’s patent application combining autologous DCs (partially matured and/or lysate pulsed) with CIs (PD-1 and/or PD-l1)
Again, one must remember that NWBO’s combination patent prosecution utilized data from Merck’s and UCLA’s study. In other words, there was cooperation.
Edit in red.
I think it’s pretty straight forward Ex, but you can ask LL if you’d like.
Maybe it would help you to remember progression for purposes of the orginal pfs endpoint was done by icon only.
While that alone would lead to inevitable confoundment due to psPD, the procedure to crossover was more thorough.
If you recall, icon was not enough for LL to allow patients to crossover, they had to wait a month or a little longer until they could confirm it.
If you also recall, the field has a pretty good handle on Stupp protocol progressions, when further confirmation like that above is included. It’s the other arm (treatment arm that initially received DCVax) , that wasn’t utilized for the rGBM secondary endpoint that would have perplexed researchers (because of t-cell infiltration).
When the UK was given the MAA submission, you can bet the 64 rGBM patients were cPD rGBM patients.
Imo.
Little known fact, the upcoming European combination patent grant includes claims for both DCVax-l (lysate pulsed) or DCVax-Direct (partially matured) with PD-1 and/or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors.
I think it’s pretty straight forward Ex, but you can ask LL if you’d like.
Maybe it would help you to remember progression for purposes of the orginal pfs endpoint was done by icon only.
While that alone would lead to inevitable confoundment due to psPD, the procedure to crossover was more thorough.
If you recall, icon was not enough for LL to allow patients to crossover, they had to wait a month or a little longer until they could confirm it.
If you also recall, the field has a pretty good handle on Stupp protocol progressions, when further confirmation like that above is included. It’s the other arm (treatment arm that initially received DCVax) , that wasn’t utilized for the rGBM secondary endpoint that would have perplexed researchers (because of t-cell infiltration).
When the UK was given the MAA submission, you can bet the rGBM patients were cPD rGBM patients.
Imo.
From the JAMA article.
Supplement 1.
Trial protocol.
JAMA. Supplement 1. Trial Protocol.
Thank You Henry and StonkMaster. Great DD Henry.
That was most unexpected. Very big news. Adept timing.
That Combination Patent should go out to 2033 or possibly the beginning of 2034 (if some patent office delays are credited).
Lifileucel, ONC Live screwed up four year survival.
Four year estimated survival for lifileucel treated melanoma (heavily pretreated unresectable and/or metastatic) was 21.9%. NCT02360579. https://oncologypro.esmo.org/meeting-resources/esmo-immuno-oncology-congress/long-term-efficacy-and-patterns-of-response-of-lifileucel-tumor-infiltrating-lymphocyte-til-cell-therapy-in-patients-with-advanced-melanoma-a-4
ONC live incorrectly reported it as 47.3%
https://www.onclive.com/view/lifileucel-demonstrates-long-term-efficacy-and-survival-benefit-in-advanced-pretreated-melanoma