"Methods for treating cell proliferative disorders by administering virus to proliferating cells having an activated Ras-pathway are disclosed. The virus is administered so that it ultimately directly contacts proliferating cells having an activated Ras-pathway. Proliferative disorders include but are not limited to neoplasms. The virus is selected from modified adenovirus, modified HSV, modified vaccinia virus and modified parapoxvirus orf virus. Also disclosed are methods for treating cell proliferative disorders by further administering an immunosuppressive agent."
You can see a myriad of Onc's patents by doing a Patent search using the search criteria Oncolytics and "ras activation" including the above one patent 8080241. Note above the Phrase "modified vaccinia virus" - which is what Jennerex's viruses are.
Also note from Wikipedia:
Oncolytic viruses developed by Jennerex are based on the vaccinia virus.
JX-594 is an engineered oncolytic virus that selectively destroys cancer cells and induces tumor immune response. Uncontrolled cell division, inactivation of the interferon pathway that is necessary to defend against viral infections, and constitutively active EGFR-Ras signaling pathway, are common features of cancer cells.
Jennerex may have a very good product but as Nome intimates one would think there would be concern by potential investors in Jennerex about Onc's IP portfolio vis a vis - treating Ras activated cancers with vaccinia viruses (modified or not).
Your exercise in blandwidth is noted. With mild amusement.
The vowel-mouthed diatribes don't "drive me crazy" nor raise my blood pressure. At times they make me smile. At others they make me wonder if you're trying to establish an insanity defence against some future crime. I discern behind your dual role as perpetrator and judge a multiple personality that allows you to play scorekeeper and declare yourself the winner of all your exchanges. (Ahh yes, hasbeen used to do that also.). Most kids abandon that ploy by the time they're nine.
Your sober posts are usually rational and frequently incisive. And, I reluctantly admit, sometimes clever. But the lunatic posts of your alter ego draw into question the issue of redeeming social value.
Just thowing this out there - many Asian countries (I know that India is one) simply don't honor patents if i is in their interest not to. Jennerex has a Korean partner, Maybe they simply don't care about patents. One of the things that I thought was an incredible statement was when they said that they (Jenn) were the first injectable viral therapy. We had already been doing that for years.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
"Jennerex has a Korean partner, Maybe they simply don't care about patents."
Jennerex has only one US patent applied for in 2007 and approved in December 2012 as far as I can see on the searchable US Patent Office web site. Onc on the other hand has 47 patents some going back much farther than 2007. There are a lot of references to prior patents in Jennerex's patent. My guess is that they will go with "Prior Art" defense if it comes to litigation.
I had forgotten that ONCY had language in their patents that cover the Jennerx products. One must wonder if the whole reason they were capitalized was the hope of getting a small payout to quelch any possible claims in the future. I still think this is what happened with Biovex. Jennerx may have also been capitalized based a complete ignorance of what already existed by either the management, investors, or both. The more I think about, the less likely I would be to buy that if they IPOed.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
When Onc got the first patent covering Adenovirus Ramon Alemany of Spain came to an agreement with Onc to collaborate with them - I believe he is on the Onc Scientific Advisory board. It doesn't look like Jennerex has made any such collaboration with Onc - at least not publicly. They may have either put that off until they actually have an approved and marketable product and choose to contest Onc's patents or negotiate royalties at that time. Just a guess but Kirn may feel that there is enough prior work done on oncolytic viruses to question Onc's patents. Kirn was vice president at ONYX pharmaceuticals when they worked on an Oncolytic virus that I believe is being used in China. At any rate if Jennerex's product is good and gets approved there could be a patent issue with Onc that would be resolved one way or the other. I don't think a good anti cancer therapy could be kept back by patent infringement - some accomodation would definitely be made.
The thought has occured to me that if Oncolytics goes ballistic and remains a corporate entity with beaucoup dollars available to it then it could start funding other oncolytic companies like Jennerex (or maybe even buy them out). That's a real stretch but interesting to think about - having Kirn, Bell, Forsythe, Lee, Harrington, Panda and other oncolytic pioneers all connected via one corporation.
Further to the previous post:
See Patent #10418290 filed April 18 2003
"Methods for treating cell proliferative disorders by administering virus to proliferating cells having an activated Ras-pathway are disclosed. The virus is administered so that it ultimately directly contacts proliferating cells having an activated Ras-pathway. Proliferative disorders include but are not limited to neoplasms. The virus is selected from modified adenovirus, modified HSV, modified vaccinia virus and modified parapoxvirus orf virus. Also disclosed are methods for treating cell proliferative disorders by further administering a immunosuppressive agent. "
I don't know when Jennerex was started as a company as it is not mentioned in their web literature but believe it was after April 18 2003. Even if it was earlier their first clinical trial was not initiated untill early 2007 as indicated by clinicaltrials.gov (search using Jennerex and select first received date in options).
Nome/freddy/bjork - the arguments being collectively used to doubt Jennerex's patent portfolio have a parallel but different conclusion.
e.g., If Jennerex's apparent inability to field a IOP is because ONC's patents may own their #$%$ - IOW - if the market's nonresponse to their IP suggests it's either invalid or inadequate then the market's paltry response to ONC's imminent PIII SPA results can also be interpreted as suggesting our IP is invalid or inadequate. Is there any believer here who does not think ONC should be trading in the high single/low double digits? The market does not seem to agree.
Does ONC's all inclusive patent portfolio own oncoytic virotherapy and that's what's holding back investor involvement with Jennerex (or Virttu or Neotropix, et al?) Minimal DD would reveal that they claim patent portfolios of their own. Are they just being foolish? Yes??. Not so fast. One really has to have blinders on to ignore the billion dollar purchase of BioVex's IP (that we theoretically hold the patents on) by Amgen. Does anyone believe that Amgen's patent lawyers don't understand biotech patents? Really?
To answer my own question - it's possible that Amgen thought/thinks that 1- the virotherapy market will be huge enough for everybody. And 2 T-Vec will be first to market and that faced with multi million dollar patent litigation our patent rights to modified HSV can be bought off for a modest royalty. That's one possibility. But another possibility is that they don't think our patents will hold.
Bottom line: If - as some propose - lack of investor enthusiasm/market success is valid evidence of questionable IP it applies to us as well as any or all of our competition.
(Disclosure: I have too much time on my hands waiting for godot.)
Investors are always focused on grabbing the main prize, but it is also worth noting that ONCY's approved patents are very extensive, and go beyond simply their own virus, but also cover using viruses to attack cancers with particular vulnerable pathways.If you believe that there is a future in using viruses to treat all sorts of "proliferative disorders" it would be hard to find a basket of patents that approaches the depth of this company's. The prospect of receiving royalties (5%? 10%?) of other biotech revenue means to me that even in the worst case scenario where Reo fails - (which I do NOT believe for a second will happen) - even in that case, the risk of having nothing in the pipeline for ONCY is markedly reduced.