You are correct that a combo patent on any vaccine of this type would make it unreasonable to run the UCLA trial with anything other than DCVax-L. Even if this trial was really just "DCvax-L" like as the earlier UCLA vaccine was they would still shift to DCVax-L later.
But this thread was the assertion by Bala and DD that the patent is specifically for DCVax-L.
To which Bala said I need to state that it is specifically DCVax-L in the patent. That would be nonsense as it would basically make the patent almost useless
P.S.: I agree in advance that the patent is a bit broader than an ATL style DC vaccine as it would cover antigens that did come from the patients tumor lysate also.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
