(Total Views: 660)
Posted On: 07/22/2021 11:05:09 PM
Post# of 154977
Patents: The only IP that Patterson possesses relates to how to measure the status of the CCR5 receptor.
And the only way that Patterson can deploy that IP is by using a labelled leronlimab molecule (flourescent if memory serves).
Hypothetically, if someone were to infringe upon a Patterson patent, that someone would have to conduct a blood test to interrogate a CCR5 receptor as to its temporal state.
So the infringer would be the clinical laboratory who conducts a CCR5 test.
Cytodyn does not currently conduct laboratory tests of CCR5.
But If Cytodyne is developing laboratory tests of CCR5, then Patterson could concievably try to block those tests.
I don't think an infringment can exist unless and until a clinical laboratory executes a commercial CCR5 laboratory test that infringes on Patterson's IP.
I suppose its possible that a clinical laboratory test conducted inside of Cytodyn human trial could be an infringement.
In any event, Patterson infringement claims would be limited exclusively to the execution of clinical laboratory tests on CCR5.
I suspect any Patterson claims would be easy to work around, either by using different labelling on the leronlimab molecule (Patterson doesn't label the leronlimab. He buys it from someone else who bought it from Cytodyn and then labelled it.), or by using different cell sorting or whatever. Patterson's claims are exclusively cell husbandry of the blood cells removed from the patient. Probably lots of ways to wrangle cells.
And the only way that Patterson can deploy that IP is by using a labelled leronlimab molecule (flourescent if memory serves).
Hypothetically, if someone were to infringe upon a Patterson patent, that someone would have to conduct a blood test to interrogate a CCR5 receptor as to its temporal state.
So the infringer would be the clinical laboratory who conducts a CCR5 test.
Cytodyn does not currently conduct laboratory tests of CCR5.
But If Cytodyne is developing laboratory tests of CCR5, then Patterson could concievably try to block those tests.
I don't think an infringment can exist unless and until a clinical laboratory executes a commercial CCR5 laboratory test that infringes on Patterson's IP.
I suppose its possible that a clinical laboratory test conducted inside of Cytodyn human trial could be an infringement.
In any event, Patterson infringement claims would be limited exclusively to the execution of clinical laboratory tests on CCR5.
I suspect any Patterson claims would be easy to work around, either by using different labelling on the leronlimab molecule (Patterson doesn't label the leronlimab. He buys it from someone else who bought it from Cytodyn and then labelled it.), or by using different cell sorting or whatever. Patterson's claims are exclusively cell husbandry of the blood cells removed from the patient. Probably lots of ways to wrangle cells.
(10)
(0)
