Sure. I think the jist of it was, once LL is prove

Sure. I think the jist of it was, once LL is proven, there will be others footing the cost of trials, across indications of interests. Removing financial burdens.
But i also left out partial of my thinking based on your reply yesterday of the patent covering even symptoms.

Avg person like me, that slips the mind. Thoughts are mainly diseased state. Forgetting how that too is such a massive LL potential & does not require a "trial", due to a doctors LL knowledge, etc.. So typing off top of my head caused that fogyness.

Adding to that, do you think LL could support the partnering with many big pharma companies, vs "just" 1 or 2 per say ? I really don't know the depth of top pharmas portfolios.

"...Phase III will be patients with Inflammation as a result of any primary disease, not just HIV."

Upcoming Phase 2 validating expanding to a mix of disease indications in same trial? That's much deeper than the lamen medical thinkers like me, are used to.
Wow.

Even with LL, all we've seen is....covid.
One track disease focused. Easy to understand.

" From what I can gather, I believe you are thinking that as a result of the 2023 Patent, if any company wanted to use leronlimab in any of its forms as a blockade to the CCR5/CCL5 axis, then a license fee would be mandatory to be paid to CytoDyn. Is that correct?"

" So, when a certain patent does come to an end in about 50+ days, can we expect some companies to begin incorporating leronlimab into their technology and if so, the development of some revenue for CytoDyn?"

Your Phase 3 comment hits @ the start of proving LL as the the holy grail. Wow.

Yes on the fee if the MAB compound/method are the same. The little fog for me: 2023 says "but not limited to Pro 140".

What comes across my mind is all the comparisons comments from many posters to LL, as other disease publications have been released. They always mention how LL is better, etc.. & for me, that fog lifts.

Which leads into revenue question. I say no short-term because, again based on outstanding posters, the 50 day expiration, will only allow R&D with LL.

Based on the 2023 patent, we know noone is doing what LL is doing. We also know the 50 day issues, also shows noone has even been performing R&D.
At least that we don't know about.

But, all this run-on to say --- we all know patents do not prove something works. Dr. J last mentioned we will know for sure of LL's MOA from a trial. (I forget which one & would appreciate if you know the clarity)

So our Phase 3, based on your clarity, will also be key in validating the 2023 patent & give Cytodyn a total lock on valuing that axis/method.

Hope im at least in the ball park on all this & ask you --- would you wait to run your own R&D until LL public results, or no?

Im thinking a big pharma would want to secure an Agreement before hand, due to the 2023. In-turn giving that possiblly "early revenue", to Cytodyn.

Just don't know @ what point triggers that agreement.

Everything in totality, all the helpful contribution postings, it is hard to wrap your head around the scale of this potential.

All real-life, going to be supported with science & patents.

Thank you again to you all the contributors, across many forums.....