I wonder if I have a scenario on the U.S. Patent situations. We know RGRX has all rights to TB 4 via the agreement with the NIH. We know, and I have posted often, that the NIH received a patent on TB 4 in 2007. I posted the DETAILS on that patent, GRANTED AND ISSUED, that it reads to me that the NIH made it a "Kitchen Sink" filing. They included EVERY thearpy indiacation possible, almost. The only ones they misssed were for EB and Cystic Fibrosis But those two do nt matter, because they are both covered thru FDA via Orphan Drug Status. Patent is NOt an issue if you have Orphand Status.
So! In 2007, The NIH was granted a Kitchen Sink patent on TB 4 - every indication known to us. But I think there is a problem with that....which is why RGRX continues to file aboy 15-20 SPECIFIC applications at the USPO. T. That might be good. Simple reason may be??? if RGRX has been granted a Kitchen Sink patent for ALL kinds of areas of TB 4...and if RGRX tries to partner out TB 4 for JUST the eye area...RGRX cannot do that. It's like an apartment building with 20 units.. You can't sell one unit as a condo easily, and keep 19 others as apartments. How can RGRX sell to a possible big pharma for EYES area..if the patent RGRX has is for almost two DOWZEN other areas. RGRX cannot segregate OUt of the 2007 ISSUED patent just the Eye areas.....can they??? So to solve, RGRX files every single indication specfically..even though it might not matter , because in 2007 RGRX (via NIH deal) was ISSUED a Kitchen Sink patent for probably close to two dozen areas of TB 4 applications..Totally locked??? So somehow if RGRX wants to "transfer" that patent right they have in Kitchen Sink...it will have to be done outside of the 2007 patent granted via a seperate legal agreement...that will RGRX holds the 2007 patent..they grant a potential partner full rights for a particular indication..via a seperate contract???