Skint, I may be totally  wrong but I think that a new patent for...

Originallypostedbyskint

Pivalde,Pranaownsthepatent.What'stonegotiate?Ifthereareanynegotiationsgoingonyourownergrouphasnotbeeninformed,andhowcananythingbeacceptedfromthepositionofmushroom.Apatentisonlyasgoodashowfaryouarepreparedtodefendit.Legalfightsaresometimesnecessary,likewhenPranafinallysettledtheCQIPquestionwithGerolymatosbackin2004.
Whereareyougettingtheinfoonthemanywhowanttogetpartownership?IfindthatinterestingsinceUQpubliclystatedontheirwebsitethatwithanydiscoverieswiththedonateddrugs,theIPwouldremainwiththedonorcompanies.IthinkMGH/Harvard,CSIROandUMownalittleofPBT2,butnotsure.

Skint, I may be totally  wrong but I think that a new patent for PBT2 is possible when we combine it with an old antibiotic drug, so the new patent would be for the combination. Our old PBT2 has it's patent but it does not last many years, but the new one could (???)last for many more years. The new patent needs to have an inventor and this person is somebody in these universities and perhaps one in Prana's team as an co-inventor. The universities can perhaps also apply a new patent for this combination even without Prana (???) and that is something I would not like. But as I told I do not know these things, I am only afraid that something like that could happen. These issues can be negotiated. 
With Sinclair it is more clear. Their offer is for general meeting. But they are also owners today and they have their interest what is not very clear. Management has promised something to Sinclair group and now most likely there is perhaps time to renegotiate also with them.
But for sure PBT2 is Prana's at the moment but I would like that at least part of this combination drug would be Prana's even longer than the present patent of PBT2 is valid.