|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 6:47:06 GMT
P.S. I am not trying to say I know what happened. I have no idea. I am just not so quick to see this as a glaring positive for OCAT. Even though it may seem that way at first glance.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 6:53:26 GMT
clinical results don't lie. Cell Cure claims that RPEs function like authentic RPE cells and preserve photoreceptors. Why no visual improvement except for enhanced light sensitivity? Something is still not perfect. inna, BTX's preclinical studies showed safety and efficacy. The cells survived and the progression of the disease slowed/stopped in the rat model. I think that looks pretty promising from a preclinical standpoint. Since neither BTX's or OCAT's rats could read an eye chart I don't think we can make any real comparisons until we see data on humans.
|
|
|
Post by forthefuture on Feb 18, 2015 7:13:51 GMT
Not a lawyer or cell biologist but I imagine there are yet other ways to derive RPEs that may not be known. Some of these patents are going to be very tough to stop, but between manufacturing, delivery, and use patents, I think OCAT should have enough of a head start to slow down any competitors pretty significantly. A new RPE derivation method likely won't break OCAT. I would consider myself a pretty critical long of OCAT, but all in all, the Cell Cure development is net positive for OCAT by far. It's my opinion that the patent granted portion if their update was a bit of slight of hand to try to distract from the TEVA partnership loss. Unless the partnership would have crushed Biotime/Cell Cure, I would wager that it's a pretty huge loss for a $300M company to lose their $54B partner. forthefuture, I was originally writing this as one more post to Kipper, but it pertains to what you just wrote as well. This is not like STEM's approach to testing AMD where it is completely different than OCAT. It is really identical. You have two companies doing identical methods of treatment for the same indication. I know some will make the argument about OCAT being years ahead of CC (Cell Cure). However, as we have seen with BCLI the IMoH is not so stingy or slow with awarding fast tracking. They are starting at P1/2a and if they show promise in the first data set they will almost certainly get fast tracked and maybe even some kind of breakthrough designation by that point. About CC losing their $54B partner. Normally I would agree, but not when the partnership is so one-sided in favor of Teva. I think Michael West knows exactly what he is doing and I wouldn't be surprised if the Teva termination is some how part of whatever plan he has. You mention the patent being used to distract from the the Teva loss. As seen below, West and Teva (they were privy to this info too) were aware of the status of the patent and knew when it would be issued. I find it more ironic that Teva would just so happen to cut ties with CC on the same day it was issued: portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair02-17-2015 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed 01-27-2015 Issue Notification Mailed 02-17-2015 Patent Issue Date Used in PTA Calculation 01-20-2015 Mail ODM Petition Decision 01-16-2015 ODM Petition Decision 01-14-2015 Dispatch to FDC 01-14-2015 Dispatch to FDC 01-14-2015 Application Is Considered Ready for Issue12-29-2014 Issue Fee Payment Verified 01-07-2015 Mail Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant 01-06-2015 Printer Rush- No mailing 01-06-2015 Printer Rush- No mailing 01-06-2015 Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant - No Action Count 01-06-2015 Information Disclosure Statement considered 01-05-2015 Pubs Case Remand to TC 12-29-2014 Issue Fee Payment Received 12-17-2014 Sequence Forwarded to Pubs on Tape 12-02-2014 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed 12-05-2014 Mail Notice of Allowance... Hey Jham, When I mention OCAT is ahead, I mean in terms of patent filings. Considering their patent strategy goes back to when West was with the company, there will be a large portfolio already stockpiled while West was just getting things started with BTX. And I say that the patent announcement portion of the PR was an attempt at misdirection because the PR preempted the issuance. 99% of companies would PR it only after the issuance had been received. Shady stuff whichever way you slice it. By the terms of the partnership, either TEVA let it run out in December (60 days from the filing of the ph1 IND) or Cell Cure just ran out of funding for the program and TEVA decided the program wasn't worth them funding. I had a hard time finding cash levels for Cell Cure so I won't rule this out at this point. Either way, it was TEVA's choice to let the option run out according to the PR so clearly there was just a lack of interest at some level from TEVA.
|
|
|
Post by HeyNow on Feb 18, 2015 7:24:17 GMT
P.S. I am not trying to say I know what happened. I have no idea. I am just not so quick to see this as a glaring positive for OCAT. Even though it may seem that way at first glance. Ocat aside, this is a glaring negative for biotime/cell cure. Their partner abandoned the program straight up. You'd have to be insane to see that as a good indicator for cell cure
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 8:16:55 GMT
P.S. I am not trying to say I know what happened. I have no idea. I am just not so quick to see this as a glaring positive for OCAT. Even though it may seem that way at first glance. Ocat aside, this is a glaring negative for biotime/cell cure. Their partner abandoned the program straight up. You'd have to be insane to see that as a good indicator for cell cure I agree which is why I think it is just as insane to think that a company in the exact same space, using virtually the exact same method to treat the exact same indication as OCAT just lost their $54B partner, is a positive development for OCAT. As you said before, a lot has changed in the competitive landscape, and what applies in that regard to BTX also applies to OCAT.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 9:04:33 GMT
Basically the way I look at it is if Teva doesn't like Cure Cell's method of treating AMD, then they don't like OCAT's either. Because...why would they? There is no difference the two. Big pharma telling the world that they don't feel it is worth partnering with a company using hRPEs to treat AMD is not good for BTX or OCAT.
Separately, although now without a partner, OCAT's biggest competition just initiated a trial using the same method for the same indication in a territory known to fast-track promising therapies.
So even though it is tough to conclude what exactly happened or is happening I just don't see how today's news can be so obviously interpreted as a good thing for OCAT. I said it before too, but it is strange that BTX ended up 4% on news that they lost their partner. That would indicate to me that people were happier to see that deal get scrapped and for BTX to go it alone/find a new partner, than continue ahead on those terms. Did West somehow convince Teva not to renew the agreement for whatever reason? Lots of unknowns for sure.
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Feb 18, 2015 9:21:00 GMT
Basically the way I look at it is if Teva doesn't like Cure Cell's method of treating AMD, then they don't like OCAT's either. Because...why would they? There is no difference the two. Big pharma telling the world that they don't feel it is worth partnering with a company using hRPEs to treat AMD is not good for BTX or OCAT. Separately, although now without a partner, OCAT's biggest competition just initiated a trial using the same method for the same indication in a territory known to fast-track promising therapies. So even though it is tough to conclude what exactly happened or is happening I just don't see how today's news can be so obviously interpreted as a good thing for OCAT. I said it before too, but it is strange that BTX ended up 4% on news that they lost their partner. That would indicate to me that people were happier to see that deal get scrapped and for BTX to go it alone/find a new partner, than continue ahead on those terms. Did West somehow convince Teva not to renew the agreement for whatever reason? Lots of unknowns for sure. I think when it comes to OCAT you tend to be a glass half empty only guy. It's good to look at it from both sides. Maybe they looked at ocat, knowing the patents of btx and just decided it wasn't worth the fight because ocat has stronger patents issued earlier? Anyone can spin this to suit their train of thought, but the facts are Teva doesn't want to be part of BTX. That doesn't look good for them, and I agree with the comment earlier on how this partnership was announced in a way to try and mask it with the patent news that isn't even issued yet. The early forecast of the patent is what I'd chalk the pps increase to.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Feb 18, 2015 9:22:07 GMT
Basically the way I look at it is if Teva doesn't like Cure Cell's method of treating AMD, then they don't like OCAT's either. Because...why would they? There is no difference the two. Big pharma telling the world that they don't feel it is worth partnering with a company using hRPEs to treat AMD is not good for BTX or OCAT. Separately, although now without a partner, OCAT's biggest competition just initiated a trial using the same method for the same indication in a territory known to fast-track promising therapies. So even though it is tough to conclude what exactly happened or is happening I just don't see how today's news can be so obviously interpreted as a good thing for OCAT. I said it before too, but it is strange that BTX ended up 4% on news that they lost their partner. That would indicate to me that people were happier to see that deal get scrapped and for BTX to go it alone/find a new partner, than continue ahead on those terms. Did West somehow convince Teva not to renew the agreement for whatever reason? Lots of unknowns for sure. Teva, or anyone else, not intrigued, if not impressed, by the data published in Lancet? Teva lapses an option and that has any bearing on, or really any relevance to, the peer reviewed data Ocat published? I guess I'm not seeing the connection, or at least not seeing Teva's decision not to exercise an option as having much, if any, relevance to where OCAT is. Neither positive, nor negative, other than removing an entity with wherewithal from the opposite side of the playing field. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 9:40:02 GMT
Basically the way I look at it is if Teva doesn't like Cure Cell's method of treating AMD, then they don't like OCAT's either. Because...why would they? There is no difference the two. Big pharma telling the world that they don't feel it is worth partnering with a company using hRPEs to treat AMD is not good for BTX or OCAT. Separately, although now without a partner, OCAT's biggest competition just initiated a trial using the same method for the same indication in a territory known to fast-track promising therapies. So even though it is tough to conclude what exactly happened or is happening I just don't see how today's news can be so obviously interpreted as a good thing for OCAT. I said it before too, but it is strange that BTX ended up 4% on news that they lost their partner. That would indicate to me that people were happier to see that deal get scrapped and for BTX to go it alone/find a new partner, than continue ahead on those terms. Did West somehow convince Teva not to renew the agreement for whatever reason? Lots of unknowns for sure. Teva, or anyone else, not intrigued, if not impressed, by the data published in Lancet? Teva lapses an option and that has any bearing on, or really any relevance to, the peer reviewed data Ocat published? I guess I'm not seeing the connection, or at least not seeing Teva's decision not to exercise an option as having much, if any, relevance to where OCAT is. Neither positive, nor negative, other than removing an entity with wherewithal from the opposite side of the playing field. Just my opinion. Jeff, Really I am just trying to make the counter point to those who are convinced that this news is a big positive for OCAT. As at this point I don't see it. Teva terminating the deal with Cure Cell is no more an indicator of something positive for OCAT than it is possibly being responsible for the failed offering for all we know. This news takes nothing away from what OCAT has accomplished to this point. Thanks for being up at this hour and responding by the way, so I am not here talking to myself
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 9:52:09 GMT
forthefuture, I was originally writing this as one more post to Kipper, but it pertains to what you just wrote as well. This is not like STEM's approach to testing AMD where it is completely different than OCAT. It is really identical. You have two companies doing identical methods of treatment for the same indication. I know some will make the argument about OCAT being years ahead of CC (Cell Cure). However, as we have seen with BCLI the IMoH is not so stingy or slow with awarding fast tracking. They are starting at P1/2a and if they show promise in the first data set they will almost certainly get fast tracked and maybe even some kind of breakthrough designation by that point. About CC losing their $54B partner. Normally I would agree, but not when the partnership is so one-sided in favor of Teva. I think Michael West knows exactly what he is doing and I wouldn't be surprised if the Teva termination is some how part of whatever plan he has. You mention the patent being used to distract from the the Teva loss. As seen below, West and Teva (they were privy to this info too) were aware of the status of the patent and knew when it would be issued. I find it more ironic that Teva would just so happen to cut ties with CC on the same day it was issued: portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair02-17-2015 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed 01-27-2015 Issue Notification Mailed 02-17-2015 Patent Issue Date Used in PTA Calculation 01-20-2015 Mail ODM Petition Decision 01-16-2015 ODM Petition Decision 01-14-2015 Dispatch to FDC 01-14-2015 Dispatch to FDC 01-14-2015 Application Is Considered Ready for Issue12-29-2014 Issue Fee Payment Verified 01-07-2015 Mail Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant 01-06-2015 Printer Rush- No mailing 01-06-2015 Printer Rush- No mailing 01-06-2015 Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant - No Action Count 01-06-2015 Information Disclosure Statement considered 01-05-2015 Pubs Case Remand to TC 12-29-2014 Issue Fee Payment Received 12-17-2014 Sequence Forwarded to Pubs on Tape 12-02-2014 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed 12-05-2014 Mail Notice of Allowance... Hey Jham, When I mention OCAT is ahead, I mean in terms of patent filings. Considering their patent strategy goes back to when West was with the company, there will be a large portfolio already stockpiled while West was just getting things started with BTX. And I say that the patent announcement portion of the PR was an attempt at misdirection because the PR preempted the issuance. 99% of companies would PR it only after the issuance had been received. Shady stuff whichever way you slice it. By the terms of the partnership, either TEVA let it run out in December (60 days from the filing of the ph1 IND) or Cell Cure just ran out of funding for the program and TEVA decided the program wasn't worth them funding. I had a hard time finding cash levels for Cell Cure so I won't rule this out at this point. Either way, it was TEVA's choice to let the option run out according to the PR so clearly there was just a lack of interest at some level from TEVA. We are in agreement on all points here. I am saying that if OCAT investors are hoping that Teva let the option run out due to lack of interest, aka because they weren't impressed with Cure Cell's hRPE platform (as some here and many elsewhere seem to be hoping), that maybe they should think again. Because if that is the case then it means there is an high probability that they would not be interested in OCAT's as well since the platforms are identical. And with the deal Teva had lined up, it must have been very uninteresting for them to walk away.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 10:05:16 GMT
Basically the way I look at it is if Teva doesn't like Cure Cell's method of treating AMD, then they don't like OCAT's either. Because...why would they? There is no difference the two. Big pharma telling the world that they don't feel it is worth partnering with a company using hRPEs to treat AMD is not good for BTX or OCAT. Separately, although now without a partner, OCAT's biggest competition just initiated a trial using the same method for the same indication in a territory known to fast-track promising therapies. So even though it is tough to conclude what exactly happened or is happening I just don't see how today's news can be so obviously interpreted as a good thing for OCAT. I said it before too, but it is strange that BTX ended up 4% on news that they lost their partner. That would indicate to me that people were happier to see that deal get scrapped and for BTX to go it alone/find a new partner, than continue ahead on those terms. Did West somehow convince Teva not to renew the agreement for whatever reason? Lots of unknowns for sure. I think when it comes to OCAT you tend to be a glass half empty only guy. It's good to look at it from both sides. Maybe they looked at ocat, knowing the patents of btx and just decided it wasn't worth the fight because ocat has stronger patents issued earlier? Anyone can spin this to suit their train of thought, but the facts are Teva doesn't want to be part of BTX. That doesn't look good for them, and I agree with the comment earlier on how this partnership was announced in a way to try and mask it with the patent news that isn't even issued yet. The early forecast of the patent is what I'd chalk the pps increase to. "I think when it comes to OCAT you tend to be a glass half empty only guy."No doubt about it, I am an OCAT bear at the moment. Not because I just wanted to be bearish on OCAT, but because from my perspective that is how I see things at this point. Like with every stock I try to look at everything, weight the pros and cons, and my sentiment forms naturally. On your other points. Why would it matter about when the patents were issued? BTX is now allowed to go forward with their very own patent protect method for deriving PREs from hESCs. They can operate freely without having to worry about OCAT. "The early forecast of the patent is what I'd chalk the pps increase to."
I am not referring to it being in the green. BTX just lost their big pharma partner. Why did the stock not tank 50%?
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Feb 18, 2015 10:12:25 GMT
Teva, or anyone else, not intrigued, if not impressed, by the data published in Lancet? Teva lapses an option and that has any bearing on, or really any relevance to, the peer reviewed data Ocat published? I guess I'm not seeing the connection, or at least not seeing Teva's decision not to exercise an option as having much, if any, relevance to where OCAT is. Neither positive, nor negative, other than removing an entity with wherewithal from the opposite side of the playing field. Just my opinion. Jeff, Really I am just trying to make the counter point to those who are convinced that this news is a big positive for OCAT. As at this point I don't see it. Teva terminating the deal with Cure Cell is no more an indicator of something positive for OCAT than it is possibly being responsible for the failed offering for all we know. This news takes nothing away from what OCAT has accomplished to this point. Thanks for being up at this hour and responding by the way, so I am not here talking to myself If you're still in Japan, we're not all that far away from each other, tho I'm still on US ground. I guess we can keep each other company, altho there may be a date line between us? Agree with your thoughts, to a degree. I don't see Teva's choice as a huge positive for Ocata. But I guess I'm not ready to go so far as to say it reflects much of anything about Ohaca's (O''Caca? A Taco? -- Trying to keep up with the humorous pejoratives …)'s progress or, maybe more importantly, the analysis that other entities are undertaking with respect to our favorite, soggy taco. I think we are aligned here, for the most part, and appreciate, of course, the healthy debate.
|
|
|
Post by actcfan on Feb 18, 2015 12:27:40 GMT
"About CC losing their $54B partner. Normally I would agree, but not when the partnership is so one-sided in favor of Teva. "
Jham, I see the above kind of the other way, Teva walking away from such a one sided deal says a lot that they really weren't impressed enough to stay even getting such a great deal. I agree though I don't extend anything here to OCAT except maybe a potential foe has less backing now.
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Feb 18, 2015 12:32:50 GMT
Jeff, Really I am just trying to make the counter point to those who are convinced that this news is a big positive for OCAT. As at this point I don't see it. Teva terminating the deal with Cure Cell is no more an indicator of something positive for OCAT than it is possibly being responsible for the failed offering for all we know. This news takes nothing away from what OCAT has accomplished to this point. Thanks for being up at this hour and responding by the way, so I am not here talking to myself If you're still in Japan, we're not all that far away from each other, tho I'm still on US ground. I guess we can keep each other company, altho there may be a date line between us? Agree with your thoughts, to a degree. I don't see Teva's choice as a huge positive for Ocata. But I guess I'm not ready to go so far as to say it reflects much of anything about Ohaca's (O''Caca? A Taco? -- Trying to keep up with the humorous pejoratives …)'s progress or, maybe more importantly, the analysis that other entities are undertaking with respect to our favorite, soggy taco. I think we are aligned here, for the most part, and appreciate, of course, the healthy debate. fwiw, my take on everything is that the most likely reason why Teva bailed on CellCure was because Teva felt Cell Cure's patent position in the RPE program was no match to OCAT's... so they concluded they'd be throwing money away working with CellCure, even though they had a sweetheart deal.
I agree with JHam that West probably doesn't agree with Teva's analysis on CellCure's IP position, and is charging ahead with the RPE program anyway. If Teva believed CellCure was on solid ground with their RPE IP position, I think they would have renewed the agreement, so that fact that they did not renew is a positive endorsement of OCAT's RPE IP position... IMO.
I still don't think you can take the next step assuming Teva will now do a RPE deal with OCAT... but you certainly can't rule it out either.
|
|
|
Post by HeyNow on Feb 18, 2015 13:30:21 GMT
Basically the way I look at it is if Teva doesn't like Cure Cell's method of treating AMD, then they don't like OCAT's either. Because...why would they? There is no difference the two. Big pharma telling the world that they don't feel it is worth partnering with a company using hRPEs to treat AMD is not good for BTX or OCAT. Separately, although now without a partner, OCAT's biggest competition just initiated a trial using the same method for the same indication in a territory known to fast-track promising therapies. So even though it is tough to conclude what exactly happened or is happening I just don't see how today's news can be so obviously interpreted as a good thing for OCAT. I said it before too, but it is strange that BTX ended up 4% on news that they lost their partner. That would indicate to me that people were happier to see that deal get scrapped and for BTX to go it alone/find a new partner, than continue ahead on those terms. Did West somehow convince Teva not to renew the agreement for whatever reason? Lots of unknowns for sure. It's not true that all hesc-rep are equivilent. Read the literature - the efficacy of the cells is considerably affected by the starting cell line (ma 09 vs others) and also by the precise method and stage at which they are harvested (pigmentation, dark vs light, remember that?).
|
|
|
Post by HeyNow on Feb 18, 2015 13:36:03 GMT
Hey Jham, When I mention OCAT is ahead, I mean in terms of patent filings. Considering their patent strategy goes back to when West was with the company, there will be a large portfolio already stockpiled while West was just getting things started with BTX. And I say that the patent announcement portion of the PR was an attempt at misdirection because the PR preempted the issuance. 99% of companies would PR it only after the issuance had been received. Shady stuff whichever way you slice it. By the terms of the partnership, either TEVA let it run out in December (60 days from the filing of the ph1 IND) or Cell Cure just ran out of funding for the program and TEVA decided the program wasn't worth them funding. I had a hard time finding cash levels for Cell Cure so I won't rule this out at this point. Either way, it was TEVA's choice to let the option run out according to the PR so clearly there was just a lack of interest at some level from TEVA. We are in agreement on all points here. I am saying that if OCAT investors are hoping that Teva let the option run out due to lack of interest, aka because they weren't impressed with Cure Cell's hRPE platform (as some here and many elsewhere seem to be hoping), that maybe they should think again. Because if that is the case then it means there is an high probability that they would not be interested in OCAT's as well since the platforms are identical. And with the deal Teva had lined up, it must have been very uninteresting for them to walk away. Jham. If the platforms were "identicle",, then cell cures stuff is not patentable. Two different companies, two different starting materials, two different differentiation methods. The resulting hesc-rep are not the same....
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 14:00:02 GMT
We are in agreement on all points here. I am saying that if OCAT investors are hoping that Teva let the option run out due to lack of interest, aka because they weren't impressed with Cure Cell's hRPE platform (as some here and many elsewhere seem to be hoping), that maybe they should think again. Because if that is the case then it means there is an high probability that they would not be interested in OCAT's as well since the platforms are identical. And with the deal Teva had lined up, it must have been very uninteresting for them to walk away. Jham. If the platforms were "identicle",, then cell cures stuff is not patentable. Two different companies, two different starting materials, two different differentiation methods. The resulting hesc-rep are not the same.... I know they aren't identical which is why I was using the word "virtually" in my first few posts. The question is are the small differences in Cell Cure's method worth it to Teva to terminate the nice deal they had in favor of OCAT? They knew the details of Cell Cure's method so why make the deal in the first place if they weren't happy with CC's method to begin with. Apparently Teva a wasn't happy with something, but I am just saying it takes a leap at this point to say that those small changes in the method, that they already knew about, made Teva suddenly favor OCAT's method.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 14:11:54 GMT
If you're still in Japan, we're not all that far away from each other, tho I'm still on US ground. I guess we can keep each other company, altho there may be a date line between us? Agree with your thoughts, to a degree. I don't see Teva's choice as a huge positive for Ocata. But I guess I'm not ready to go so far as to say it reflects much of anything about Ohaca's (O''Caca? A Taco? -- Trying to keep up with the humorous pejoratives …)'s progress or, maybe more importantly, the analysis that other entities are undertaking with respect to our favorite, soggy taco. I think we are aligned here, for the most part, and appreciate, of course, the healthy debate. fwiw, my take on everything is that the most likely reason why Teva bailed on CellCure was because Teva felt Cell Cure's patent position in the RPE program was no match to OCAT's... so they concluded they'd be throwing money away working with CellCure, even though they had a sweetheart deal.
I agree with JHam that West probably doesn't agree with Teva's analysis on CellCure's IP position, and is charging ahead with the RPE program anyway. If Teva believed CellCure was on solid ground with their RPE IP position, I think they would have renewed the agreement, so that fact that they did not renew is a positive endorsement of OCAT's RPE IP position... IMO.
I still don't think you can take the next step assuming Teva will now do a RPE deal with OCAT... but you certainly can't rule it out either.
Right, but now Cell Cure has their very own patent protection on virtually the same method and can work freely in the space regardless of OCAT's patents. You'd think that if Teva made the deal before Cell Cure had IP protection, they'd want to continue the agreement after they secure protection. Obviously Teva wasn't happy with something, but I am having a hard time seeing how it relates to the issuing of patent.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Feb 18, 2015 14:13:50 GMT
"About CC losing their $54B partner. Normally I would agree, but not when the partnership is so one-sided in favor of Teva. " Jham, I see the above kind of the other way, Teva walking away from such a one sided deal says a lot that they really weren't impressed enough to stay even getting such a great deal. I agree though I don't extend anything here to OCAT except maybe a potential foe has less backing now. I agree, but there must also be a reason why the stock didn't plummet yesterday after CC lost there big pharma.
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Feb 18, 2015 14:14:56 GMT
fwiw, my take on everything is that the most likely reason why Teva bailed on CellCure was because Teva felt Cell Cure's patent position in the RPE program was no match to OCAT's... so they concluded they'd be throwing money away working with CellCure, even though they had a sweetheart deal.
I agree with JHam that West probably doesn't agree with Teva's analysis on CellCure's IP position, and is charging ahead with the RPE program anyway. If Teva believed CellCure was on solid ground with their RPE IP position, I think they would have renewed the agreement, so that fact that they did not renew is a positive endorsement of OCAT's RPE IP position... IMO.
I still don't think you can take the next step assuming Teva will now do a RPE deal with OCAT... but you certainly can't rule it out either.
Right, but now Cell Cure has their very own patent protection on virtually the same method and can work freely in the space regardless of OCAT's patents. You'd think that if Teva made the deal before Cell Cure had IP protection, they'd want to continue the agreement after they secure protection. Obviously Teva wasn't happy with something, but I am having a hard time seeing how it relates to the issuing of patent. I'm not 100% aligned on the bolded assumption above.
On why Teva made the deal with BTX in the first place - given OCAT's IP in RPE - that's a good question.
|
|