Thanks woodenbear. Seem like a good description f
Post# of 158098
(Total Views: 440)
Posted On: 08/28/2019 7:51:50 PM
Re: woodenbear #6870
Thanks woodenbear. Seem like a good description for those concerned about NP. I'm looking forward to reading the reply. Though, it looks like we will get the bla submission, mono pivotal started and probably drug approval in combo, I wouldn't rule out approval in mono before any of this with RP is settled.
To me it looks like NP thought RP was stonewalling everything, tnbc trial, colon cancer ind, animal studies, etc, nothing was getting done or it was moving at a snail's pace. So he decided to work around RP in late June. Remove Pestel's name from the ind, move the animal studies to another researcher, work with another group get patients injected in tnbc under emergency ind. I will say lots more started getting done once NP was on the case beginning in June.
RP claims the reasons for the delays were NP's fault. I think the biggest problem with the whole thing was the team not physically at the same location. Many of these issues may not of come about if their offices were next to each other.
Also, the diagnostic test assigned to Dr Patterson July 1, if it was assigned to RP, my guess is we would still be waiting. There is an interesting comment about RP talking to patent counsel about the impact of another patent, I assume that would be his original ccr5/cancer patent, with NP telling him not to speak with her. This says, NP claimed, "Dr. Pestell was uncooperative, had misrepresented information regarding programs and patents"
126 For example, on July 1, 2019 the Company issued a press release regarding an
anticipated collaboration with Dr. Bruce Patterson relating to diagnostic tests using PRO 140 – a topic obviously within the scope of Dr. Pestell’s responsibilities for “development programs in oncology and immunology for PRO 140” and “exploration of new and existing patent protection for PRO 140” – without providing Dr. Pestell with a chance to review it first.
127. After the release had been made public without his input, Dr. Pestell asked to speak with the Company’s patent counsel, Chandra Edit, about its impact on another of the Company’s patent applications and on a licensing agreement currently in discussion but was told by the CEO not to speak with her.
To me it looks like NP thought RP was stonewalling everything, tnbc trial, colon cancer ind, animal studies, etc, nothing was getting done or it was moving at a snail's pace. So he decided to work around RP in late June. Remove Pestel's name from the ind, move the animal studies to another researcher, work with another group get patients injected in tnbc under emergency ind. I will say lots more started getting done once NP was on the case beginning in June.
RP claims the reasons for the delays were NP's fault. I think the biggest problem with the whole thing was the team not physically at the same location. Many of these issues may not of come about if their offices were next to each other.
Also, the diagnostic test assigned to Dr Patterson July 1, if it was assigned to RP, my guess is we would still be waiting. There is an interesting comment about RP talking to patent counsel about the impact of another patent, I assume that would be his original ccr5/cancer patent, with NP telling him not to speak with her. This says, NP claimed, "Dr. Pestell was uncooperative, had misrepresented information regarding programs and patents"
Quote:
The CEO, in his July 1 Email, represented to the Board that Dr. Pestell had failed
to “work with the CEO to expedite the TNBC trial,” ignored the CEO’s 'constant request(s)' relating to the trial, and been uncooperative with regard to the trial.
126 For example, on July 1, 2019 the Company issued a press release regarding an
anticipated collaboration with Dr. Bruce Patterson relating to diagnostic tests using PRO 140 – a topic obviously within the scope of Dr. Pestell’s responsibilities for “development programs in oncology and immunology for PRO 140” and “exploration of new and existing patent protection for PRO 140” – without providing Dr. Pestell with a chance to review it first.
127. After the release had been made public without his input, Dr. Pestell asked to speak with the Company’s patent counsel, Chandra Edit, about its impact on another of the Company’s patent applications and on a licensing agreement currently in discussion but was told by the CEO not to speak with her.
(1)
(0)