Clarification regarding Patent application "publication" not issuance, and a question for management.
The site I used incorrectly referred to the "issue" date for the application as October 01, 2015. It should change its system, because what it really meant to say was application "publication" on October 1, 2015. That site will continue to cause much confusion until it does that.
I compounded this by having a lazy title here and on YMB by saying "patent issued" when I really meant "patent application publication." My ultimate point was the same.
Anyway the law changed in 2000, and applications for patents have to be published after a certain amount of time passes -- before the actual patent is granted.
The actual average time to patent from application is 36 months.
I think one of the main points here is that back on November 5, 2014, the inventors were thinking very carefully about how to make certain DCVax patent protection included combination potential.
What I think has happened since that time, as evidenced by slide 31 from London, and the IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-a poster plus LP's London presentation, is that we have 2 possibilities.
1. The people living long went from the DCVax-Direct trial and onto checkpoint inhibitors, which would give extremely strong persuasion to pursuing DCVax-Direct/CI combinations. (I only know of one patient that did this -- but there may be more.)
Or.
2. Most patients did not go to CIs after completing the DCvax-Direct trial -- except perhaps one or two. In that case, there is a strong likelihood that CIs will not be needed in combination with DCVax-Direct. (method B or method B+)
This is not an easy question to determine an answer to without direct word from NWBO on how many patients went onto CI after DCVax-Direct, but I think it would be helpful to know if CI treatment has often been the follow up or not for patients that were in the Direct trial.
In either case, setting CI aside, the considerations related to getting the best results from DCVax-Direct include manufacturing DCs that will secrete massive amounts of il-6, il-8 and tnf-a from DC secretion aka: method b or perhaps even super method b. IMHO.
This is a question I think it would be time to answer. There is no question the 15 out of 27 patients that expressed increased or emerging PDL1 on macrophages did very well. Does that mean the CI's helped with that process after DCVax-Direct set the stage? Or does that mean DCVax-Direct obtained the strong survival (only one death through September from that group of 15) without much CI inhibitor follow up?
Respect Risk. Conduct Your Own Due Diligence. Manage your assets wisely. Diversify.
