Fred,
You should not be invested in any BioTechnology company if you cannot understand that there is nothing cryptic in what they presented. The patent applied for in May was "Allowed for Issuance". That means it was approved. What follows is payment of the issuance fees and costs. Then there is a period of over a month, possibly two, in which the allowance converts to an actual issuance. During that period, a grantee does not reveal the specific claims of a patent until the actual certificate is issued because of a practice followed by some nasty people of filing challenges to the issuance and essentially holding the patent hostage in order to extort some payment from the grantee. It happens.
From the update, NanoLogix waited until the allowance happened to research what process they would go through with the FDA to apply for an EUA. Since they could not know in advance which of what are stated as 25 Claims, if any, in the application would be approved and which would be challenged or rejected, then there would be no point in beginning any EUA process until they knew they had intellectual property rights (aka the PATENT) to the technologies. Had they done so and found they didn't own rights to what they submitted they just might look foolish.
Given the statement of two potential applications, I hope they would be based on just two of the 25 claims but I don't know if that is the case until the patent is published for the public. If that is so, then the patent would really have an amazing potential. We will have to wait to see.
I like the other part about the research being done for application to another platform and the potential there.
The only cryptic part to me, unrelated to any FDA-related statement, is whatever the narrative may be for the "challenges that were presented to the Company from outside sources apparently opposed to either the technology development or the Company since our May release of the COVID19 news." The "apparently opposed" part is indicative of either opposition, manipulators, competitors, or those constantly bashing all things NanoLogix for whatever reason and it'll be very interesting to read what form those challenges were, as from the wording they appear to be past-tense.
Adding David Barnhizer to the company, with the credentials and experience listed, is a huge positive. It appears they are positioning themselves for something.
Scott
You should not be invested in any BioTechnology company if you cannot understand that there is nothing cryptic in what they presented. The patent applied for in May was "Allowed for Issuance". That means it was approved. What follows is payment of the issuance fees and costs. Then there is a period of over a month, possibly two, in which the allowance converts to an actual issuance. During that period, a grantee does not reveal the specific claims of a patent until the actual certificate is issued because of a practice followed by some nasty people of filing challenges to the issuance and essentially holding the patent hostage in order to extort some payment from the grantee. It happens.
From the update, NanoLogix waited until the allowance happened to research what process they would go through with the FDA to apply for an EUA. Since they could not know in advance which of what are stated as 25 Claims, if any, in the application would be approved and which would be challenged or rejected, then there would be no point in beginning any EUA process until they knew they had intellectual property rights (aka the PATENT) to the technologies. Had they done so and found they didn't own rights to what they submitted they just might look foolish.
Given the statement of two potential applications, I hope they would be based on just two of the 25 claims but I don't know if that is the case until the patent is published for the public. If that is so, then the patent would really have an amazing potential. We will have to wait to see.
I like the other part about the research being done for application to another platform and the potential there.
The only cryptic part to me, unrelated to any FDA-related statement, is whatever the narrative may be for the "challenges that were presented to the Company from outside sources apparently opposed to either the technology development or the Company since our May release of the COVID19 news." The "apparently opposed" part is indicative of either opposition, manipulators, competitors, or those constantly bashing all things NanoLogix for whatever reason and it'll be very interesting to read what form those challenges were, as from the wording they appear to be past-tense.
Adding David Barnhizer to the company, with the credentials and experience listed, is a huge positive. It appears they are positioning themselves for something.
Scott
7
1
