Share
494 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 53
clock Created with Sketch. 25/02/18
18:49
Share
Originally posted by harvett
↑
No explanation has been given other than that there was a dispute centered around NOX66 IP. KZA has no ownership or claims on Idronoxil as clearly stated on the patent and past history with MEIP. That only leaves the new formulation of the base, not the active ingredient. If that is what the dispute was about....and that is a big if, it all comes back down to the time that based was developed. It is was corrected in the * article of 21st of NOV that the product was not formulated when Dr Kelly was the CEO of NRT. So again if that is true, what possible claim could have KZA management have on the IP of NOX66. ZERO Yet.... YET payment was made for certainty before new trials began. Thus the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about, is what IP claim could KZA possible have on NOX66? Is it the ambient nature of NOX's IP application that includes other formulation of isoflavone other than idronoxil that could be used as the active or is it really around the claims on the base? The best way to answer that question is for someone to simply spell out what year was NOX66 first developed.
Expand
All you have done is restate your same questions that you have previously stated (to the point of tedium). Rather than expect people to answer you, then tell them that they don’t know anything, why don’t you tell us.
(20min delay)
