InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 50
Posts 899
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/01/2015

Re: NWDR post# 57924

Thursday, 03/31/2016 2:28:41 PM

Thursday, March 31, 2016 2:28:41 PM

Post# of 473846
Regarding royalties otherwise owed to Dr. Vamvakides, the non-patentability of the combination drug may turn out to benefit Anavex and her shareholders. Anavex was clearly assigned rights to 2-73; however it seems Dr. Vamvakides compensation for the 2-73 plus anything left some wiggle room for Anavex to renegotiate pre-existing agreements with Dr. Vamvakides. If I remember correctly, Dr. Vamvakides filed a patent similar to the 2-73 Plus patent probably to ensure Anavex didn't exclude Dr. Vamvakides from losing influence and royalty rights. Now that the 2-73 plus patent has received a "final" rejection the 2-73 standalone rebuttal should acquiesce the concerns of the USPTO and put a rest to Dr. Vamvakides worries, if indeed he still had any. Remember, 2-73 was in many ways the life work of Dr. Vamvakides. His legacy is likely more important than cash.

In short, it seems Dr. Missling has been right all along - "there is no patent issue".
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent AVXL News