No one is going to pursue a CiaB type trial only to be sued for IP infringement.
PMCB has a license from an expired patent. No one will pursue a CIAB like trial, because the concept is already 30 yrs old, and has been superseded by targeted therapies.
What decade? Where's the IND?
Full? The expired Austrianova patent covered such a full use.
Sure it's a refiling. Kenny claims a provisional filing, which can't be confirmed. So what improvement did PMCB make, so as to make PMCB a patent holder of a new CIAB product? What did Kenny tell the SHs? Answer: Nothing.
Exactly. Austrianova is filing for a patent they will own. Covering a new delivery system to protect probiotics, and drugs against stomach acid degradation. They have the option after obtaining a patent to license it out to whomever they wish.
One has Kenny claiming a provisional filing on an expired Austrianova patent, PMCB previously licensed from Austrianova. As the filer, PMCB would need to describe the improvements they made to the old CIAB.
In the background one has Austrianova applying for a new encapsulation CIAB like device to protect delivery of probiotics, or drugs from stomach acid.
You suggest these new patents by Austrianova are of relevance to PMCB. So where's the announcement Austrianova has licensed off the new patents to PMCB? And why the provisional filing by Kenny for what?
Also, note the FDA would require new pre-clinical safety studies for a new delivery device. Especially when developed by Austrianova for an unrelated purpose.
Why wouldn't he accept money for his services? Or more accurately for the use of his name?
The market cap for this Microcrap scam is whatever retail bids it up to. A S3 merely registers the shares. It does not mean any single entity is going to buy them. It does mean dilution, which I'll leave you to calculate. Hint: It's potentially huge.