| Followers | 200 |
| Posts | 25596 |
| Boards Moderated | 0 |
| Alias Born | 04/03/2010 |
Saturday, November 19, 2022 12:43:19 PM
First of all, the combo agreement does not affect NWBO’s complete and full rights to DCVax-L, to which they have had the sole patent.
Secondly, the company approached UCLA to manage the trials and the development of new patents was a part of that agreement. NWBO is also an inventor of that agreement and under co-development circumstances, they will still hold the full rights and license though there may be some royalties or other payments. There may be more to it. But I believe they still receive all rights to even the combination because they own DCVax-L, and, by the way, the other companies own the rights to their drugs.
It really gains value only when those other companies and NWBO sign combination therapy agreements to create a new treatment together and then, possibly, the University may get some value out of that as happens sometimes. That could come in terms of doing primary research and/or some royalty if the combination is commercialized as a new drug. But at the moment it has no impact on DCVax-L as a stand-alone drug, even if doctors choose to separately prescribe other drugs. It’s also not granted yet and the final grant, while it may be substantially narrow, the original claims do block other companies from making those claims, so as a blocking patent, it is very useful even for claims not awarded as the original claim was very broad, broader even than DCVax-l with x drug. It is more along the lines of dendritic cells and with any PD1, PD-L1, etc., with many other kinds of immunotherapies. But those other combination claims were not granted because they are as of yet speculative. But they are also effectively blocked for others, giving the company and university freedom to research broad possible combos without themselves being blocked by another’s patent.
Secondly, the company approached UCLA to manage the trials and the development of new patents was a part of that agreement. NWBO is also an inventor of that agreement and under co-development circumstances, they will still hold the full rights and license though there may be some royalties or other payments. There may be more to it. But I believe they still receive all rights to even the combination because they own DCVax-L, and, by the way, the other companies own the rights to their drugs.
It really gains value only when those other companies and NWBO sign combination therapy agreements to create a new treatment together and then, possibly, the University may get some value out of that as happens sometimes. That could come in terms of doing primary research and/or some royalty if the combination is commercialized as a new drug. But at the moment it has no impact on DCVax-L as a stand-alone drug, even if doctors choose to separately prescribe other drugs. It’s also not granted yet and the final grant, while it may be substantially narrow, the original claims do block other companies from making those claims, so as a blocking patent, it is very useful even for claims not awarded as the original claim was very broad, broader even than DCVax-l with x drug. It is more along the lines of dendritic cells and with any PD1, PD-L1, etc., with many other kinds of immunotherapies. But those other combination claims were not granted because they are as of yet speculative. But they are also effectively blocked for others, giving the company and university freedom to research broad possible combos without themselves being blocked by another’s patent.
I own NWBO. My posts on iHub are always posted expressly as just my humble opinion (IMHO) and none are advice, just my opinion. I am NOT a financial advisor, and it is assumed that everyone is responsible for their own due diligence.
Recent NWBO News
- Northwest Biotherapeutics Announces Establishment Of the Company's Own Dedicated Leukapheresis Clinic • PR Newswire (US) • 04/21/2026 01:30:00 PM
- Northwest Biotherapeutics Announces Establishment Of the Company's Own Dedicated Leukapheresis Clinic • PR Newswire (US) • 04/21/2026 01:30:00 PM
- Form EFFECT - Notice of Effectiveness • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/21/2026 04:15:08 AM
- Form POS AM - Post-Effective amendments for registration statement • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/16/2026 09:25:30 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/07/2026 04:30:50 PM
- Form NT 10-K - Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-K 405, 10-K, 10-KSB 405, 10-KSB, 10-KT, or 10-KT405 • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/31/2026 09:04:37 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/15/2026 10:06:20 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 01/02/2026 10:14:59 PM
- Form DEF 14A - Other definitive proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/28/2025 09:43:27 PM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/25/2025 10:23:07 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/20/2025 09:26:03 PM
- Form PRE 14A - Other preliminary proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/19/2025 09:15:48 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/14/2025 09:44:21 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/31/2025 04:29:10 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/30/2025 08:40:05 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/24/2025 04:28:38 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/14/2025 06:22:26 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/14/2025 09:00:38 PM
- Form 424B5 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(5)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 07/01/2025 09:04:38 PM
