Thank you Misiu. Same to you as well. I agree that

Thank you Misiu. Same to you as well. I agree that I was under the impression that we are patenting targeting CCR5 for many diseases based on the calls. I believe that our patents mention using leronlimab or a humanized Ab. I was trying to get some clarity as to why Pattersons was invalid. Was it timing, too broad (claiming to use any CCR5 inhibitor), the fact that he did some of the work while under contract with CYDY so he can't claim it as his.

Respert brings up a valid point about stiffling competition. For example can Novo have patented targeting semiglutide for obesity to keep tirzeptide coming taking what appears to be the most most lucrative market in history. It didn't happen. Does that also mean our disease specific patents may also not be enforceable if Patterson's is not. What does a patent even mean if it is not enforcable. The counter is how do you keep drug prices in check without competition which these patents hinder. How do you bring a drug to market if you cannot protect it properly with patents.

Inicdently with regards to off label use, the most famous in history is Lucentis versus Avastin for ARMD. Genentech refused to run the trial against their own molecule so the NIH did it and proved that the 2 biologics were equivalent. Avastin went on to take 60% of the market at $50 a dose. This is VERY unlikely to be repeated in my opinion, but figuered I would throw it out there to keep the discussion going. We know Dr. J and Tyler also read this board.