Replies to post #319742 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[shipbuilder]

I've searched through the compiled links but was unable to locate the noted patent application submission date.

Can anyone point me to the specific date the application was made? What kind of time range does a patent application of this type take to process by the patent office?

It's easy to understand there are different degrees of protection provided by a patent pending vs. a granted utility patent.

[Protector]

jbainseky, I'dd like to add an accent to this:

This is also why anyone interested in buying the PPHM's exosome technology has to not only evaluate if the process works, but also validate/assess the strength of the patent claims etc. not a simple process and takes time.

While the assessment of patent strength is certainly correct if one acquires a patent in the 'pending assessment' state, the other part of your statement may bring some practical problems between negotiating parties.

Of course the acquiring party will not want to buy a cat in a bag and needs some 'hard' evidence related to the made claims otherwise they only remain unverified claims. But THAT is not proper to the PENDING state because the US IPO (and other world IP organisations) do NOT test. They must have reasonable feasibility expectation and see if no breaching of scientific law such as the laws of aerodynamics, conservation of energy and plenty of others surface.

If for instance someone would file for something that would appear to be a perpetum immobile then under, for instance, former German Patent law it was forbidden, under current patent regulations the inventor may have to (be allowed to) proof it with a prototype. It was an extreme example because we know 'perpetum' doesn't exist in the Universe as all atoms we know on the Periodic Table (mendeleev/Mayer tables) fall apart at a rate depending on their radio active half-time. But I was just illustrating.

So what you wrote is something that, IMO, needs to be done ALLAYS even with a GRANTED patent. Actually patent regulation require that you give at least one example proving that what you claim can be realised and it must be in such detail that a man of the art can reproduce it. However, patent law does not require this to be your preferred embodiment, nor the complete set of extra possibilities 'on top' if not claimed.

Hence patents give there least disclosing example that very often proofs the claims are feasible (hence in patent terms: teaches the public how to) in exchange for 20 (17) years of protection if granted. This example is mostly NOT the economical interesting one and very often doesn't give anything away that would allow you the implementation of the economical interesting one. As long as the example does what you claim can be done it is OK.

So any party around the PPHM table would need the CERTITUDE that the Bavituximab molecule can be made and that the Exosome test would work with liquid citometry.

Luckily for us PPHM has produced the bavituximab molecule, possibly even the betabodies (SPECULATION) and for sure has made an Exosome based liquid biopsy test that has been successfully used with liquid citometry in a 32 human patients test.

And so, YES I am with you on the leverage ability of those patents, with your side note that those patents that were NOT granted yet would need a patent strength evaluation BEHIND the 'search report' that IP agencies run UP-FRONT patent filing and the search reports/comments that US IPO and alikes make as a first thing after verifying the correctness of the filing. Pending does entail some risk because strength evaluation isn't fail proof either.

AIMO