I believe when a patent is submitted, essentially it thoroughly describes a concepts which may, or may not be in the process of being tested. For those who can remember TV's and other such devices which used cathode ray tubes for displays the story of the patent for which was generally considered the best is interesting. A group of electronic experts got together and looked at every way they believed you could generate a color picture with a cathode ray tube and determined there were four ways, three of which were patented and being used. They found the fourth was not patented or tried. As I understand it they submitted the patent before ever building one, but the trinitron tube was born.
The point is, the patent took far less time and money than actually building and testing the product, and much the same applies to clinical testing. Preclinical development often is more than sufficient for developing a patent, but the clinic determines how well it works.
In the case of our products, if trials show tremendous efficacy, the drug should be worth a lot, but only if those looking to partner or acquire it believe it's patents will eventually be upheld, even if they've not yet been granted. If potential partners or buyers don't believe the patents to be valid, and they don't believe that with modification they can be validated, the product will have substantially less value. If you cannot get patent approval, what is to stop others from duplicating what you have, and paying you nothing for the efforts you've taken in developing it.
I believe both must be advanced, patents and clinical trials of products, and even if patents require modification in order to be approved, as long as experts clearly believe they can be approved, we have a very viable product if it proves to be effective in clinical trials. All the patents in the world mean nothing if what's patented doesn't work. The trinitron tube dominated color television for decades, but today only collectors might pay something for them, as various forms of flat panel displays are far superior, and even there we've had several improvements, and no doubt many more to come.
Gary
The point is, the patent took far less time and money than actually building and testing the product, and much the same applies to clinical testing. Preclinical development often is more than sufficient for developing a patent, but the clinic determines how well it works.
In the case of our products, if trials show tremendous efficacy, the drug should be worth a lot, but only if those looking to partner or acquire it believe it's patents will eventually be upheld, even if they've not yet been granted. If potential partners or buyers don't believe the patents to be valid, and they don't believe that with modification they can be validated, the product will have substantially less value. If you cannot get patent approval, what is to stop others from duplicating what you have, and paying you nothing for the efforts you've taken in developing it.
I believe both must be advanced, patents and clinical trials of products, and even if patents require modification in order to be approved, as long as experts clearly believe they can be approved, we have a very viable product if it proves to be effective in clinical trials. All the patents in the world mean nothing if what's patented doesn't work. The trinitron tube dominated color television for decades, but today only collectors might pay something for them, as various forms of flat panel displays are far superior, and even there we've had several improvements, and no doubt many more to come.
Gary
