you're on the right path..but here we really need lawyers:
<<....why couldn't RGN just "license" the bio companies to use a TB-4 formulation for a specific application?>>
Ummmmm, I think there is a big difference between owning a patent and just own a license right. Big pharma will want all ducks in a row......perfect..before they pounce..if TB 4 is successful. They have to be. There are too many companies & peopel that look for the tiniest of loopholes.....to then try and screw you and sell your product. There are patent lawsuits in the paper DAILY! Apple Computer seems to file new suits every day. A company has to protect the IP.........it's just the way the world is.
But if RGRX is unsuccessful at getting a couple dozen INDIVIDUAL disease/therapy indication patents for TB 4.....then if the drug does work well enough.....they will just have to come up with some kind of legal document to carve out rights from the 2007 issued patent. But I don't know if the NIH can do that??? the NIH owns the patent, NOT RGRX........RGRX just has the full "license" rights of TB 4 from the NIH. I don't know if the NIH then can carve out a license from 2007 patent..because RGRX has it. It might have to be that NIH assigns to 2007 patent to RGRX?????? and then RGRX cuts a deal with a potental partner????
It's all a mess. but I think TB 4 is covered patent wise.