Replies to post #67051 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[TrueTrades]

I am following the same line of thinking regarding A19-144 and the newer apps. I wonder if/how A19-144 may be patented apart from A2-71. Can the composition and MOU as a mono therapy still be patented? I am guessing no way. My opinion has always been that ever-greening A2-71 via combo was the only way to protect it.

I suspect PCT apps with an officer and attorney listed as inventors, such as WO2016064711, will become the norm now that Anavex is a fully patent law-aware firm.

And then there's A3-71...:-D
§

[Amatuer17]

Logical write up

In short Avxl does not have A2-73 patent and they may not get patent for A2-73 alone.

A19-144 or A2-73 for other indications maybe the way forward. However company has not even mentioned it in any PR.

However the only trial Avxl is carrying and we all are watching for the results is A2-73 for Alz. So all our bets are based on a non-patented product.

So what happens if we get great results for 31 weeks? How company wants to address the patent issue and continue to spend money on further trials of A2-73?

Alz is the path to richess for us investors.

[makemydaze]

Thanks for trying to sense of a convoluted and confusing topic. Very much appreciate your detective work.

[F1ash]

That Sir, is one informative, well written, concise post. Thanks for taking the time to put that together and sharing it with the board. :-)

Great DD.

[gburgin]

Outstanding post! A couple of questions...

You said re: A19-144 "It’s effectively at the same stage of development as A2-73 (being the metabolite of A2-73)."

Are you inferring that the fda (for approval purpose) accepts testing of 2-73 as testing of A19-144 and both will get the same verdict at the same time?

You said re: A19-144 "...then follow up a few years later with A19-144 combination therapies for Alzheimer’s"

What intellectual property related advantage does a "combination" therapy off of A19-144 have over a combination off of 2-73? Each would be just as patentable as the other, correct? I don't understand the A19-144 advantage in that scenario.

[Investor2014]

Excellent work tracing the patent history.

So we have a patent granted on 2-73 good till 2035!

Given this

Therefore, if the prior art [Greek patent 1002616] teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims [in 12/522761] are necessarily present.” In other words, even though the original Greek patent does not mention anti-cancer, anti-metastatic, and anti-inflammatory activity, these properties must be present because the compound is present.

Does it in practice matter that Anavex cannot claim same molecule for AD? After all the molecule is protected, for other indications, and presumably no one can copy 2-73 and start using it for AD without infringing the patent that Anavex hold, since the molecule's properties that applies to AD must necessarily be present?

Of course if a patentable variant of 2-73 could be invented still effective for AD, then that could be competition. The saving grace we must hope is 3-71 being even better than 2-73 and patent protected by U.S. Patent No. 8,673,931