NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Rkmatters]

www.google.com/patents/US20050059151

I'm cool with that, we've found your patent.

Now can you simply prove it's not just IP but actually in use in DCVax L? Because of course if that's what they were using why license the tech from UCLA? Liau flat out stated no dedicated maturational step in making UCLA version of DCVax (which is what they are using in the current P3). Can you find a UCLA patent instead that is from that era that describes DCVax Brain?

Also the agreement you found between NWBO and UCLA is interesting but states all the work on trial and design is with UCLA's tech, not NWBO's.

Citing an NWBO patent does not prove what was in the tech they licensed from UCLA. -- Pyrr

UCLA discovered the antigens. They tested in the lab with DC methods "known to the art". UCLA did not come up with new methods for DC. After pre-clinical testing, they licensed it out to a company (NW Bio) with DC "proprietary to the art" (their methods were not out there being used, meaning they were not "known to the art" yet (lol). (But yes, UCLA needed to tinker away from the acid-e approach, which we know they did in Phase I/II.)

[This is the same way as Mayo clinic has partnered with TapImmune, and choose to license to them, because of combining with TPIV's patented technologies (which incidentally they will do at booster stage in upcoming trials). There exist youTube discussions on this. Choosing licensing partners is big deal. But for now Mayo clinic has cited using NW Bio's antigens "known to the art methods" (the prostate patent) in their FRa multiple epitope antigen patent to which their vaccine received FAST TRACK in Ovarian Cancer due to prelimineary Phase I data (very small arm data ;D). ]

Again, you need to review the agreement. Stop taking "no additional activation" step so literally. DC steps are proprietary, and they will not be detailed in the protocol. And keep in mind, Rockefeller University patent is not their proprietary methods (though they do use that step in their patents). But, anyway, I think I might finally get you to concede if you see this:

®-Brain Manufacturing Steps:

DCVax® — Characteristics

The DCVax® platform combines our expertise in dendritic cell biology, immunology and antigen discovery with our proprietary process of activating DCs outside of a patient’s body to develop therapeutic products intended to stimulate beneficial immune responses to treat cancer in a cost-effective manner. DCVax® has the following significant characteristics, the combination of which we believe makes it a highly attractive alternative to current therapies.

Activation of the Natural Immune System

Our DCVax® product candidates are designed to elicit a natural immune response. Pre-clinical and clinical trials suggest that our DCVax® product candidates can train a patient’s own Killer T-cells to locate and destroy specifically targeted cancer cells. These same clinical trials also suggest that DCVax®-Prostate stimulates the body to produce antibodies and/or Killer T-cells that bind to cancer-associated antigens and potentially destroy cancer cells marked by these antigens. Moreover, the clinical trials show that this immune response may be effective in delaying time to disease progression in brain and prostate cancer, and both may prolong survival and improve the quality of life for brain and prostate cancer patients.

Multiple Cancer Targets

We believe that our DCVax® platform can be applied towards the treatment of a wide variety of cancers. The platform affords the flexibility to target many different forms of cancer through the pairing of DCs with cancer-associated antigens, fragments of cancer-associated antigens or deactivated whole cancer cells as well as possible direct intra-humoral injection of partially mature dendritic cells.

www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1072379/000114420409020743/v146005_10k.htm

Liau flat out stated no dedicated maturational step in making UCLA version of DCVax (which is what they are using in the current P3). Can you find a UCLA patent instead that is from that era that describes DCVax Brain? -- Pyrr

I flat out stated things too, and you ALWAYS imply meaning to my words. I honestly think that is what you're doing here. Stop taking their words so literally. The confidentiality agreement and SEC statements make it clear that they don't want their proprietary methods being used out there. And the Confidentiality agreements I've shown you, makes it clear that they wouldn't want these things that they would then have to fight in legal battles to protect patented methods.

And so now, it is up to you to prove that BCG and IFNy isn't in DCVax-L technology. And sorry, but a passage in a paragraph is not enough. Because if I read the above, it certainly sounds like DCVax-L uses their expertise in dendritic cell biology, immunology and antigen discovery with their proprietary process of activating DCs outside of a patient’s body to develop therapeutic products intended to stimulate beneficial immune responses to treat BRAIN cancer. ;)