On one side of this matter is Freehills, an international force...

On one side of this matter is Freehills, an international force in IP law, and including a senior partner who is handling the NOX patent strategy, and GK who has over 30 granted patents to his name and who has won a patent case in US courts against a formidable foe. On the other side of this debate is a self-professed expert with what I am guessing is zero level of patent experience.

But leaving aside the uneducated and vindictive carping, here is my understanding of the current patent situation.

• There is no composition of matter claim. Idronoxil is generic.
• There is no use claim over the treatment of cancer. Past patents (even expired ones) have ruled that out.
• There is even the mention in expired patents of delivering idronoxil by suppository.

So, what does that leave NOX?
It leaves them with idronoxil-C. As NOX has stated many times, this is a novel form of the drug that appears in the blood after they administer NOX66. And NOX is confident that this is the form that is enabling idronoxil finally to work as an anti-cancer agent, as well as crossing the blood-brain barrier.

When I asked the Company if this only applied to idronoxil, the answer was NO, that this is the basis of the Company’s LIPROSE drug delivery technology that is the basis of the two isoflavonoid drugs in Nyrada. In fact, they believe that it can be applied to any isoflavonoid compound as a way of increasing its drug-like properties.

Sounds like a novel and eminently patentable position to me.