pierre, no. I got only information that " these folks were...

pierre, no. I got only information that " these folks were working on this". I perhaps understood wrongly that PBT2 had to be given to them by Prana because I do not think that anybody else would have PBT2. I still think that if somebody is studying PBT2, PBT2 must come from Prana. PBT2 is so prominently presented in the paper, no generic name is used so prominently.

But now I think we need to get forward with this, not using lawcourts but understanding that Prana may be able to get part of the royalties if they are smart when hopefully negotiating with UQ or those who most likely have filed a patent application. The first 6 months ( perhaps 12 months) after a patent application is (IMO) kind of silent time, no information to anywhere. Application needs to be made quite soon after the invention has been published ( in 6 months ?) For sure it looks now evident that Prana is not included in the patent application, no contact at all to Prana. This issue now does not any better for us by blaming Prana. I would only blame UQ not telling the results to Prana. A good negotiation result with UQ is the only thing we owners can get something for us. If a new patent for this purpose is granted for some 20 years and Prana would have some ownership in this patent, we should be happy. But now it looks like UQ is not very interesting about this in spite they were using Prana's patented chemical.
But I do hope that there is now negotiations between Prana and UQ. In spite Bohlmann et al used some other PBT2 from an other laboratory (?) I do not believe that they could sell rights to use PBT2 to pharma companies in these severe infections as long Prana's patent of PBT2 is valid. UQ and Prana are stronger together. Just my opinion based on too little information and for sure info by Prana would help us to understand what is the present situation.