in case you don't know who they are they're the company that challenged the patents on MANF that AMBS owns. They lost their challenge. The partner stated that he thought their patent covers too many potential variations of MANF that would make it cumbersome for anyone to do work on it without infringing on AMBS's patents. That's a pretty powerful statement.
I love this article. I don't think people realize how important this is...you have words directly from the partner of Hermo Pharma, another biotech firm with funding from the Michael J. Fox Foundation, basically admit that when they challenged AMBS's patent they did it because they thought the patent coverage AMBS has on MANF is too broad. That is, they think that it covers too many potential variations of MANF. The challenge was denied and the judge upheld the patents. That means that anyone working on MANF or anything that has 90% homology (i.e., similarity) to MANF will be forced to deal with AMBS. This is for a protein that has shown significantly better results at the current stage of testing it is in than another drug that was purchased for $250 Million. Do you understand how huge this is? AMBS has a market cap of $9 Million.
It's all about the MANF patents. These proteins can be modified to treat the diseases they are trying to treat (like Parkinsons, Myocardial Infarction, Alzheimers, TBI, etc) better but anyone that wants to work on MANF or anything similar to it has to go through AMBS. There's a reason why Hermo Pharma challenged these patents. Ask yourself why Hermo Pharma felt compelled to challenge their MANF patents. If you don't believe me then read this interview with the partner of Hermo Pharma, who is a VC backed biotech startup and received $700k in funding from the Michael J. Fox Foundation on why they challenged the patents:
These are his own words:
"Their patent covers all sequences with 90% homology to MANF (182 amino acid protein -- variation in 18 amino acid residues allowed, 20 options for each position -- you do the math; the result is an astronomical number of variants!). According to the patent law this causes "an undue burden" to anyone who would like to test these variants for activity. This is the explanation why we have challenged the EPO granted patent on MANF for Amarantus."
Right now MANF is producing much better results than GDNF produced at this stage and GDNF was purchased for over $250 Million AT THIS STAGE of testing.
AMBS is only worth $9 Million right now.
Versus $250 Million.
Do the math.
And listen to people that know the science like Dr. Rubinfeld who said "I believe that MANF could be one of the biggest successes that I have ever seen". This isn't just some schlub. It's the co-founder of Amgen.
Again, I didn't expect a big breakout last week because there are a lot of people that bought at the $0.02 level that would be taking profits as well as a lot of people that bought in the $0.06 to $0.08 range that were just looking to bail as soon as a rally came along. Those are the weak hands that lost sight of the big picture. We should rally next week and beyond. I believe it will get to a $75 Million market cap before a partnership is announced. With 225 million shs that equates to a $0.33 per share stock.
I think $7 Million is way too low for a company with this much patent protection. Especially when you consider that MANF results are significantly better than GDNF results at this point in the testing cycle. The company that owned the rights to GDNF was purchased by Amgen for over $250 Million when GDNF was at pre human trials. That's about 35 times more than AMBS's current market cap.
$250 Million vs $7 Million for a better treatment option for Parkinsons and other diseases.
There's a reason the co-founder of Amgen calls MANF a potential blockbuster and that it could be "one of the best successes I have ever seen". Patent protection, orphan drug potential, much better results than a $250 Million drug at the same stage of testing...all for $8 Million. The market will wake up to this very soon and price it appropriately.
The co-founder of Amgen just happens to be on the advisor board here and was quoted as saying ""I believe in MANF," said Dr. Rubinfeld, "I have reviewed a great number of technologies in my 45 year career in the biopharmaceutical field, and I believe that MANF could be one of the biggest successes that I have ever seen. The fundamental scientific premise of reducing protein misfolding is basic, yet very profound. The data, while early, demonstrates very clearly at the cellular level and in animals that MANF reduces apoptosis, improves cellular function, and restores behavioural deficits in a number of disease models, including Parkinson's, Stroke, Myocardial Infarction and Traumatic Brain Injury. These are all indications with very large markets and clear unmet medical need. I believe that if we are able to further de-risk MANF with positive toxicology studies and early clinical data, the Company's new orphan drug strategy could get MANF to market rather expeditiously. MANF has the commercial potential to become a blockbuster drug."
I don't think he's sticking around here for fun. And he is certainly not going to risk his reputation being involved with AMBS unless he believed in them.