The 2007 TB 4 patent was issued and granted by the US Patent Office to the NIH. The NIH was VERY clear on the areas and indications they requested coverage for. The Patent Office agreed and granted such. It is a legal fact and I think will hold up in court. here is exact wording , again:
"As used herein, a "wound-healing effective amount" of a composition containing T.beta.4 or a T.beta.4 isoform for use in wound healing is defined as that amount that is effective in promoting tissue regeneration and repair. The "wound-healing effective amount" may be the therapeutically effective amount. Diseases, disorders or ailments possibly modulated by T.beta.4 or a T.beta.4 isoform include tissue repair subsequent to traumatic injuries or conditions including arthritis, osteoporosis and other musculo-skeletal disorders, burns, ulcers and other skin lesions, neurological and nerve disease and cardiovascular diseases including ischemia and atherosclerosis. Other potential tissues which can be treated by the methods and compositions of the invention include epidermal, eye, uro-genital, gastro-intestinal, cardiovascular, muscle, connective, and neural tissues. The term "induce", "induction" or "effect" as used herein, refers to the activation, stimulation, enhancement, initiation and/or maintenance of cellular mechanisms or processes necessary for the formation of a tissue or a portion thereof, repair process or tissue development as described herein.
In another embodiment, the invention provides a method for modulating wound healing in a subject or a tissue including contacting the subject or tissue with an effective wound-healing amount of a composition containing T.beta.4 or a T.beta.4 isoform. It is envisioned that T.beta.4 or a T.beta.4 isoform can be administered topically or systemically to prevent or treat a damaged tissue including, for example, tissues damaged due to ischemia, including ischemic brain, bone and heart disease, damage to corneal or retinal tissue of the eye, and damage to epithelial tissue, including skin. >>>
Case closed. The issue is how can RGRX segregate OUT a particular area from this kitchen sink granted patent.......to a big pharma......without transferring all other granted areas.
It is a legal fact and I think will hold up in court.
Sno, we appreciate your fact finding, but you interpretation of patent documents is just silly. Patent law is the most arcane of all, but you seem somehow to have convinced yourself that you have the answer. This is classic sno. Get some facts and come to one conclusion that becomes clear to you alone.
Come on sno, there is no way anyone knows what is and is not protected at rgn. That is why stock is where it is. And that is the bet, that things will become clear for all with newly issued patents that rgn is struggling to get. That is the binary event here. A positive new patent with send the stock into single digits.
Disagree, bo....RGRX has teh kitchen sink TB 4 patent granted. But a pharma partner will wish a spcific TB 4 patent for the area they want. You partnet eyes? I want an eye patent. you partner heart? I want a heart patent. You partner MS? I want an MS patent. You partner CF? You want a CF patent.
RGRX is already covered in ALL these areas. But they cannot take scissors and carve out what is in the patent. IMO? That is why RGRX is killing themselves to file TB 4 patents in each individual disease or indication. A patent issued for the eyes is easily transferable. The 2007 issued patent the NIH got is not easily transferable to particular separate indications.
So you tell me. You think the 2007 NIH patent not valid? And if it is valid, explain to me how you think they can carve up that 2007 intgp several dozen disease or therapy indications? How? So RGRX files a couple dozen TARGETED patent filings for each inividual area. They can sell tat easily if granted.