As I understand it, it's pretty analogous to the Enbrel/Remicade story. Basically two slightly different ways to skin the same cat. But when you are trying to modulate the immune system, small differences in approach can sometimes produce big differences in safety and efficacy.
If this is analogous to Enbrel/Remicade story, are you implying that SCTPF may have been able differentiate their drug enough so that they won't run into patent issues down the road (with Stanford or others)?