Replies to post #6917 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Cbdpotential]

Great post. Thank you!

[tootalljones]

More Great work Wolf. I am an attorney and have always felt that the issue is a a fait accompli in favor of our company. Don't know what the issues are but it is probably a perceived slight by the doctor, such that he is angling for something. Cooler heads need to prevail and they will prevail in favor of what seems clear.

[Doktornolittle]

US Patent Application for Anavex 2-73: Anavex is "Original Assignee", which is reassuring. Would be more reassuring to have the patent in hand... but looks like the patent application was only filed last July.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20140296211

And below is a reply from the Anavex interface staff regarding questions about patents.

-------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your email and interest in Anavex Life Sciences Corp. (OTCQX: AVXL).

Comprehensive patent applications have been filed. These are for composition of matter and use of ANAVEX 2-73 independent of the previous inventor. However, there are no concerns since Anavex owns all intellectual property irrespectively.

The attached files lead to Anavex’s pending U.S. patent applications and issued U.S patent. Some applications have corresponding international filings. All pending applications are being thoroughly pursued.
U.S. Pat. App. No. 13/777,471
“Sigma-Receptor Ligands with Anti-Apoptotic and/or Pro-Apoptotic Properties Over Cellular Biochemical Mechanisms, with Neuroprotective, Anti-Cancer, Anti-Metastatic and Anti-(Chronic) Inflammatory Action”
Not yet published
Identical to parent U.S. Pat App. No. 12/522,761 / U.S. Pub. No. 20100069484

U.S. Pat. App. No.14/205,637
“Sigma(s)-Receptor Ligands with Anti-Apoptotic and/or Pro-Apoptotic Properties, Over Cellular Mechanisms, Exhibiting Prototypical Cytoprotective and also Anti-Cancer Activity”
U.S. Pub. No. 20140228375

U.S. Pat. App. No.13/940,352
“Anavex2-73 and Certain Anticholinesterase Inhibitors Composition and Method for Neuroprotection”
U.S. Pub. No. 20140296211

U.S. Prov. Pat. App. No.62/065,833
“A19-144, A2-73 and Certain Anticholinesterase Inhibitor Compositions and Method for Anti-Seizure Therapy”
Unpublished

U.S. Pat. No. 8,673,931
“Bicyclic Heterocyclic Spiro Compounds” (ANAVEX 3-71, previously AF710B)
In addition to the existing portfolio, positive clinical data and novel molecular chemistry studies both completed and underway are considered avenues for additional proprietary protection, which are being currently and actively pursued.

Please do not hesitate to contact our office if we can be of further assistance.

----------------------------------------------------------------

[WolfWayne]

More patent dispute clarity DD w/ good news

Below you will find two links. The first link is for the 2007 Original Agreement, which I assessed was the original agreement between Assignor (Vamvakides) and Assignee (Anavex) regarding Anavex 2-73. Given the verbiage within the 2012 Revision of the 2007 Original Agreement, I think you will also agree, as the verbiage strongly indicates the future utility of Anavex Plus. At your leisure, you can compare and contrast the differences between the two versions. I will highlight the major takeaways I deducted from these documents.

First, Paragraph 1.1 was rewritten to include “inventions made during the term of the Contract filed on or after January 2007 and not falling under 1.1. (a)-(d) wherein Dr. Vamvakides is an inventor”. 1.1(a) covers what I assess to be Anavex 2-73. The inclusion seems to cover Anavex Plus, which is good for Anavex because Article 1 discusses the transfer of patents!

Paragraph 2.5 was removed, which formerly stated “the Assignor does hereby waive any interest in the improvements” of the patent applications “so long the Assignee has complied with its obligations set out in this agreement”. To my understanding, this means Vamvakides decided that waiving his "interest" to Anavex Plus was not a good idea from the start. The verbiage was likely a meaningless concession of Anavex's part. Still, "interest" does not overcome paragraph 1.1, in which Vamvakides transfer the patents! Right?

Paragraph 6.4 was rewritten to forbid “royalty stacking” as a result of a “compound of the patents” therefore establishing a 1% royalty ceiling. This is in addition to the 6% royalty for Anavex 2-73 that remains unchanged in Paragraph 6.2.

Paragraph 9.1 was rewritten in part to state that a breach of contract by the Assignee (Anavex) “shall not result in the return of patent rights or intellectual property rights to the Assignor (Vamvakides)”. It also now reads the “Assigner (Vamvakides) shall be relieved of obligations hereunder except as to paragraph 2.6”, which remained unchanged. The important verbiage in paragraph 2.6 state, “on the first request from the Assignee (Anavex) or its representatives, he (Vamvakides) will without delay provide any signatures and/or supply any documents related to the invention”. Also, the new paragraph states, “Assignor’s (Vamvakides) sole remedy shall be limited to monetary damage”. Seems like Anavex has a strong legal patent-case here, right?

Paragraph 9.2 was rewritten in part to state that the Assignee (Anavex) could terminate this agreement with 30 days notice for any reason; however, this action would allow the Assignor (Vamvakides) to regain the rights of the patents.

Analysis

Vamvakides wants that money, and he will get it. As I understand, Vamvakides is already looking at receiving 7% royalties for Anavex 2-73 and Anavex Plus combined. Given the many indications of Anavex 2-73 in combination with other drugs, as well as epilepsy indications, Vamvakides might be regretting signing over his life’s work for 7%. Still, that does not make Vamvakides’ legal case any stronger, given these documents.

Bottom Line: The more transparency we bring to light regarding this issue, the more comfortable we will be. No patent dispute is good news. However, a patent dispute for an OTC penny stock that has a potentially disease-modifying catalyst just a few days away is certainly indicative of efficacy. Given what I know up until this point, I have my money on Anavex, not Vamvakides – literally : )

2007 Original: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1314052/000108503707000289/super8k-exh10_1.htm

2012 Revision: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1314052/000106299313006497/exhibit10-81.htm

[Doktornolittle]

WWayne,

Reviewing the Dec 11, 2012 ammendments that you dug up, that Vamvakides agreed to / signed; as per the new section 3.2, he remained on payroll from that day forward at $10K per month. I am trying to find out from Anavex if he is still on that payroll. If so, then he was certainly on payroll through 2013 when he filed that patent application in question.

Even the original 2007 agreement talked about obligations extending through the life of the patents and any improvements, so there didn't need to be continued employment to bind him, but to have continued employment on top of that is a whole further layer of protection. A third layer of protection was the clause that you pointed out that said that even if Anavex failed the contract in some way, the only remedy for Vamvakides would be $, not the patent. And Vamvakides agreed to that.

I was initially worried seeing that Vamvakides had put himself as the assignee on the 2013 patent. But in retrospect he is only required to inform Anavex of the improvement and application, and to sign the patent over upon request. There was no obligation to generate the patent with Anavex as the assignee to begin with.

And as we speculated, the lack of his signature on Anavex's version of the patent could be a non-issue or deliberate killer-whale repellant as was speculated yesterday.

The only clauses I saw in the 2007 agreement that could be problematic if this likely imagined patent dispute turned out to be real, would be sections 2.2 and 2.5, and both were removed in the 2012 ammendments that Vamvakides agreed to / signed-off on.

From WW

2007 Original: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1314052/000108503707000289/super8k-exh10_1.htm

2012 Revision: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1314052/000106299313006497/exhibit10-81.htm

[LGL8054]

Thank Wolf that takes some of the confusion away and clarified much of the information....... Can we get one of the Mod's to sickie it or post it on the I-board ?