Hi PlayezI'm not totally convinced of that as yet given Agila...

Hi Playez

I'm not totally convinced of that as yet given Agila filed their own TPM Dapto patent which clearly spelled out in their own tests that the reconstitution times were indeed reduced. 

Was reviewing the diff patents and couldn't find one by POH that clearly isolated TPM as the matter solely. They have patches, Vit A, a TPM Prop with Terumo and the original Carrier patent which does involve TPM obviously and I'm thinking this was the reliance patent against Mylan maybe? 

Personally and possibly wrong, they may have fallen down with the fact the Carrier patent clearly identifies its relationship to nutraceuticals and cosmeceuticals as the active but no mention of pharmaceutical. 

Maybe this is how Agila Mylan got around it all in so much as their new patent clearly specified TPM Dapto (as pharmaceutical active) and I can't see why they would bother patent if TPM a no go. 

That leads onto the recent comment by POH about the licence agreement and commercialisation as that would hopefully spell out more clearly the need for Mylan to work with them on that.

Maybe that's what they should have gone after firstly but that probably didn't come into the frame as an issue until Mylan have now started marketing their generic Dapto product (without TPM at this stage) which may or may not be against the agreement. 

Ref links:

http://www.rxcertifications.org/Drug-Shortages/Current-Shortages/Drug-Shortage-Detail.aspx?id=467

https://www.hipaaspace.com/medical_billing/coding/national.drug.codes/txt/67457-813-50

https://ndclist.com/ndc/67457-813/package/67457-813-50

https://data.epo.org/gpi/EP2887953A4-IMPROVED-DAPTOMYCIN-INJECTABLE-FORMULATION

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2011094814A1

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=WO&NR=2011094814A1&KC=A1&FT=D

https://patents.justia.com/assignee/phosphagenics-limited