Here’s some facts.
1. Process patents don’t exist to prove “effectiveness” They exist to protect manufacturability, consistency, safety, and regulatory reproducibility. Clinical effectiveness is demonstrated in trials — not in a patent filing. Conflating the two is either ignorance or intentional misdirection.
2. “Process patents are hard to defend” is a trope, not reality Medical devices are routinely protected by process claims because compliance, QC, and reproducibility are inseparable from the process itself.
If process patents were meaningless, half of med-device IP portfolios wouldn’t exist.
3. “Anyone could make an offset” — yet no one has. Public domain doesn’t mean commercially replicable. If this were trivial, we’d already see copycats manufacturing and selling — not armchair theorizing on message boards.
4. Market reaction doesn’t mean scientific or regulatory merit. Pre-revenue biotechs don’t reprice on patent PRs — they reprice on regulatory inflection points. Pretending otherwise just signals unfamiliarity with the sector.
5. Different approach doesn’t mean superior approach. Choosing encapsulation over intratumoral gel says nothing about efficacy — it says something about regulatory familiarity. Faster paperwork does not equal better physics.
Calling something “snake oil” doesn’t substitute for evidence — it just signals that you’ve run out of new arguments and are recycling rhetoric.
Same swing.
Same miss.
Better go back to plastic bat and whiffle balls.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
