|
Post by JHam on Nov 22, 2015 3:11:23 GMT
Discussion about ONCS' patents started over in the OCAT forum, so I wanted to move it over here where those who follow the company could chime in.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 22, 2015 3:12:56 GMT
tradeup said the following:
ONCS, hah. As of last week I'm averaged in at $3.02. Small position.
Simple thesis: it's finally in oversold territory, trading near cash, and a post-dilution dingbat rally is in order.
The science is 'meh.' Much of the patent estate facing expiration, highly competitive space, and very low chance of clinical success, but what the hell.
|
|
|
Post by nateb on Nov 22, 2015 3:17:34 GMT
Pulled from the last 10K.... Our success depends in large part on our ability to protect our intellectual property using a combination of patents, trade secrets, and confidentiality agreements.Certain of our patents will expire in the near future, and we may have difficulties protecting our proprietary rights and technology and we may not be able to ensure their protection. Our commercial success will depend in large part on obtaining and maintaining patent, trademark, and trade secret protection of our product candidates and their respective components, including devices, formulations, manufacturing methods, and methods of treatment, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing our product candidates is dependent upon the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. As we describe elsewhere in this Annual Report, we have patent protection for components of our ImmunoPulse™ product candidates. Our current device portfolio includes US6,014,584, US6,055,453, US6,068,050, US6,181,964, US6,216,034, US6,233,482, US6,241,701,US6,516,233, US7,412,284, and EP999867, 12 which cover our current clinical device. These patents will expire between 2017 and 2018, at which point we can no longer enforce these against third parties to prevent them from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing our current clinical device. This could expose us to substantially more competition and have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to commercialize or license our technology and product
I think this is what Tradeup was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 22, 2015 3:18:11 GMT
What tradeup is referring to is the following:
Expiring in 2017:
Patent #6,014,584
- Electroporation therapy apparatus
Patent #6,055,453
- Apparatus for addressing needle array electrodes for electroporation therapy
Expiring in 2018:
Patent #6,181,964
- Minimally invasive apparatus and method to electroporate drugs and genes into tissue
Patent #6,216,034
- Method of programming an array of needle electrodes for electroporation therapy of tissue
Patent #6,233,482
- Method of electroporation mediated delivery of drugs and genes
|
|
|
Post by nateb on Nov 22, 2015 3:24:11 GMT
The patent covering their therapeutic method is good for at least another ten years though. US8,026,223 covers our current therapeutic method. Patents have also been granted in Australia, and applications are pending in Canada, China, Japan, and Korea. This patent family will expire between 2025 and 2027
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 22, 2015 3:31:39 GMT
The patent covering their therapeutic method is good for at least another ten years though. US8,026,223 covers our current therapeutic method. Patents have also been granted in Australia, and applications are pending in Canada, China, Japan, and Korea. This patent family will e xpire between 2025 and 2027Yes. My argument (understanding) is that while these patents may expire, the only one that really matters is the following: Patent # 8,026,223 Treating malignant tumors with high field strength electroporation of plasmids encoding IL-12
patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,026,223.PN.&OS=PN/8,026,223&RS=PN/8,026,223 It was secured in an exclusive license agreement with the University of South Florida back in 2012 and doesn't expire until 2024: oncosec.com/oncosec-secures-license-for-electroporation-intellectual-property-from-university-of-south-florida/So while the patents on the needles and some apparatus for the OMS electroporation machine may expire in a few years, ONCS will only lose protection against those who want to make their own electroporation machine. As far as being able to inject IL-12 intratumorally via electroporation, ONCS has that locked up until 2024. And that's all that really matters. ONCS also received patent allowance back in January of this year for IL-15: ir.oncosec.com/press-releases/detail/1744/oncosec-medical-obtains-allowance-of-key-patent-application-for-intratumoral-delivery-of-plasmid-il-15
|
|
|
Post by nateb on Nov 22, 2015 3:35:25 GMT
Jham,
I agree completely. The therapeutic method is protected for quite some time and Oncosec is taking steps to move beyond the IL-12 patent as well, as you pointed out with IL-15. There is also nothing to say Oncosec cannot build a better electroporation device in the future and patent the improvements. I agree they are in a competitive space but I don't understand the "meh science" comment. I suppose that is a discussion that deserves another thread though.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 22, 2015 3:40:42 GMT
Jham, I agree completely. The therapeutic method is protected for quite some time and Oncosec is taking steps to move beyond the IL-12 patent as well, as you pointed out with IL-15. There is also nothing to say Oncosec cannot build a better electroporation device in the future and patent the improvements. I agree they are in a competitive space but I don't understand the "meh science" comment. I suppose that is a discussion that deserves another thread though. They already have, which in my opinion is why they are not too concerned about these current patents on the old device expiring: immuno-oncologynews.com/2015/09/10/oncosec-advances-smart-electroporation-technology-minimally-invasive-immunotherapy/I have the presentation link somewhere at home on my computer. I'll post it later.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 22, 2015 3:57:19 GMT
Jham, I agree completely. The therapeutic method is protected for quite some time and Oncosec is taking steps to move beyond the IL-12 patent as well, as you pointed out with IL-15. There is also nothing to say Oncosec cannot build a better electroporation device in the future and patent the improvements. I agree they are in a competitive space but I don't understand the "meh science" comment. I suppose that is a discussion that deserves another thread though. Yeah I am not sure what is so bad about the science. There is no question that companies are trying to use IL-12 to fight cancer. Most methods can't be used however since injecting IL-12 directly into the blood stream is highly toxic. Right now the best options are either by using a viral vector like AMGN (T-vec) or ZIOP, or electroporation like ONCS. Electroporation has the reputation as being junk technology so maybe that is what tradeup is referring to? I'll wait to hear what he says.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 22, 2015 4:06:56 GMT
The patent covering their therapeutic method is good for at least another ten years though. US8,026,223 covers our current therapeutic method. Patents have also been granted in Australia, and applications are pending in Canada, China, Japan, and Korea. This patent family will e xpire between 2025 and 2027Exactly. Again, I want to hear what tradeup says. He has a good understanding of patents and may have a different take.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantsilver on Nov 22, 2015 16:14:55 GMT
There science is not bad, but the results thus far are not overly compelling. That could change of course with the combo results coming.
|
|
|
Post by nateb on Nov 22, 2015 18:11:33 GMT
Ignorant silver,
Just curious but what results would you consider compelling? I think so far the ORR and CRR have been compelling myself.
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Nov 22, 2015 19:54:54 GMT
There science is not bad, but the results thus far are not overly compelling. That could change of course with the combo results coming. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's the trial size, not the reported results that are not compelling. Reported results are better than pretty much any other monotherapy, certainly better when you take cost per patient into the equation. Having said that, I see it as a moot point because mono results are irrelevant to ONCS future, combination data is what matters, and the science on improving PD1 response is sound. As to patents, even if all their patents expired tomorrow, they are 18 months from doing a P3 combination trial? How long, and how much would it cost to catch up to them? 3 years,4?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantsilver on Nov 22, 2015 20:08:40 GMT
CRR of 14%, how much better is that than current treatments?
|
|
|
Post by nateb on Nov 22, 2015 21:11:36 GMT
Ignorantsilver,
As furbush said, reported results are better than pretty much any monotherapy. But I agree, the combination trial is really where it is at. If they do well there, it is off to the races.
|
|
|
Post by rbruf59 on Nov 22, 2015 23:27:24 GMT
Believe it or, good talk on Y-board. Anyone interested?
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 23, 2015 0:03:15 GMT
Believe it or, good talk on Y-board. Anyone interested? Are you referring to the thread about Algazi's lecture?
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Nov 23, 2015 0:23:05 GMT
CRR of 14%, how much better is that than current treatments? Well, Keytruda has a 24% ORR, and IL-12 has something around 38%. Keytruda is being touted as the wonder drug, so I kind of use it as a standard.
|
|
|
Post by nateb on Nov 23, 2015 0:36:44 GMT
CRR of 14%, how much better is that than current treatments? Well, Keytruda has a 24% ORR, and IL-12 has something around 38%. Keytruda is being touted as the wonder drug, so I kind of use it as a standard. And the million...no billion dollar question is what kind of synergy will arise when the two are combined?
|
|
|
Post by furbush87 on Nov 23, 2015 1:13:28 GMT
Well, Keytruda has a 24% ORR, and IL-12 has something around 38%. Keytruda is being touted as the wonder drug, so I kind of use it as a standard. And the million...no billion dollar question is what kind of synergy will arise when the two are combined? That's still a ways away. I don't expect MC to get above $300m off of interim P2b data (might spike higher), probably $200-$250m is a reasonable expectation. Final data should put us in the $400m-$500m. This assuming of course that they can show ORR in the 75% range, which if the science is correct should be very achievable.
|
|