Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Crazy thought about the patent


#1

A crazy thought came over me, although Follica came out with a 2nd patent that excludes lithium to up-regulate wnt, the first patent is still a valid patent is it not? What if the the exclusion of lithium in their latest, refined patent was just to throw would be experimenters off? Everything I’ve read on the media on-line about Follica’s discovery was to up-regulate wnt after a wounding process. Would just wounding and their so-called miracle drug (ie. getfitinib) be enough or do you need something like lithium somewhere in the treatment period to bring this whole thing together? What is the major difference between the 1st and 2nd patent? Did they add anything major in the 2nd patent? I haven’t studied it as much as most here but the obvious thing I keep hearing is that there is no lithium in the later. Why go to the trouble of making a second patent just to exclude lithium. If they don’t use it in their final process then they don’t use it. There will be a lot of things that won’t be used yet they leave it in there anyway – it doesn’t hurt. Think about it, the wounding process alone would make many not make the attempt unless they are assured it would work. Most are just sitting and waiting to see if brave souls like baccy, benji, Tagohl etc. will succeed. If someone finds success, then it will spread like wildfire long before Follica gets the method approved to market. They don’t want people to figure this thing out yet they are forced to put out a patent to describe how it’s done however vague it is to cover their ass. Are they trying to hide it? Crazy thought, I know, but I’m bored and just felt like posting something, lol.


#2

yes I agree, you are crazy.

If the ommited something from the patent, then it was just because of legal issues. There is no other reason then that.


#3

» yes I agree, you are crazy.
»
» If the ommited something from the patent, then it was just because of
» legal issues. There is no other reason then that.

What kind of legal issues can there be with leaving lithium in there? Please explain.


#4

I have to agree that companies with vested interests like this would employ misdirection wherever possible to reduce the chances of success being replicated by outsiders. My personal belief is that as well as satisfying legal criteria, the patent strives to throw in wildcards and direct the reader down paths with multitudes of permutations. It makes sense for them to do that whilst still including the core process within.


#5

Hi Baccy,

Have you ever thought about molecular size in your experiments? As far as i remember from discussions years ago about minox&co, a molecule has to have a certain size to be able to enter the skin. So maybe the lithium molecule is just too big to enter the skin? Could be one of many reasons, i know, but maybe it’s a relevant thing.
Heres an abstract for you:


The 500 Dalton rule for the skin penetration of chemical compounds and drugs
Jan D.Bos and Marcus M. H. M.Meinardi
Department of Dermatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Correspondence to Jan D. Bos, Department of Dermatology A0-235, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel.: +31 20 566 2587. Fax: +31 20 696 0076
e-mail: j.d.bos@amc.uva.nl
Copyright © Munksgaard 2000
KEYWORDS
drug design • skin • topical drugs • transdermal
Abstract:
Abstract

Abstract: Human skin has unique properties of which functioning as a physicochemical barrier is one of the most apparent. The human integument is able to resist the penetration of many molecules. However, especially smaller molecules can surpass transcutaneously. They are able to go by the corneal layer, which is thought to form the main deterrent. We argue that the molecular weight (MW) of a compound must be under 500 Dalton to allow skin absorption. Larger molecules cannot pass the corneal layer. Arguments for this “500 Dalton rule” are; 1) virtually all common contact allergens are under 500 Dalton, larger molecules are not known as contact sensitizers. They cannot penetrate and thus cannot act as allergens in man; 2) the most commonly used pharmacological agents applied in topical dermatotherapy are all under 500 Dalton; 3) all known topical drugs used in transdermal drug-delivery systems are under 500 Dalton. In addition, clinical experience with topical agents such as cyclosporine, tacrolimus and ascomycins gives further arguments for the reality of the 500 Dalton rule. For pharmaceutical development purposes, it seems logical to restrict the development of new innovative compounds to a MW of under 500 Dalton, when topical dermatological therapy or percutaneous systemic therapy or vaccination is the objective.


So molecule size may really matter, as it may be ineffective to rub something on your head, which is then not able to actually enter the skin.


#6

» So molecule size may really matter, as it may be ineffective to rub
» something on your head, which is then not able to actually enter the skin.

I must admit, it’s been a concern whether topicals ARE actually getting through. The results from the first time around may be purely due to the wounding. The truth is, we don’t really know. We can go on second guessing ourselves forever. My new topical may be totally ineffective too. Tannic acid has been shown to be a potent EGF inhibitor but only shown in vitro. In a human being, it may be entirely different. But we DO know that tannic acid can and is used topically. Lithium? You’re right, I don’t know. All we can do is give it the best chance of getting through and that’s what the DMSO and emu oil is for. But your point is very valid and has been a concern.


#7

» I have to agree that companies with vested interests like this would employ
» misdirection wherever possible to reduce the chances of success being
» replicated by outsiders. My personal belief is that as well as satisfying
» legal criteria, the patent strives to throw in wildcards and direct the
» reader down paths with multitudes of permutations. It makes sense for them
» to do that whilst still including the core process within.

Yeah, it’s not like they get a refund for the 1st patent just because they came up with the 2nd patent with lithium omitted. Why go through the trouble? What other things do they have in the patent to up-regulate wnt? Wounld depilation, wounding and egf-r inhibitor be enough to increase wnt? I think we all agree that wnt MUST be up-regulated at some point during the treatment.


#8

» » yes I agree, you are crazy.
» »
» » If the ommited something from the patent, then it was just because of
» » legal issues. There is no other reason then that.
»
» What kind of legal issues can there be with leaving lithium in there?
» Please explain.

I cannot imagine any other reason why someone would wilingly decrease range of their patent, if, only, the reason was not a collision with something that someone already patented or there was some other legal issue.


#9

I think the general belief about using WNT upregulation topicals is that it would probably render the whole thing needing full clincial trials. The “uses existing drugs” gain would be pretty much gone for Folica that way. Although the risk is probably pretty damn small, there is talk of tumor possibilities from topical Lithium.

But that’s not the same thing as saying Lithium doesn’t help the process.

And their patents have also said “oral works too” and oral Lithium is already considered pretty safe.

At any rate, we’ve been going off their comments. It sounds like the process is probably using two existing drugs. EGF-R and immune system drugs are two drugs right there.


#10

» » » yes I agree, you are crazy.
» » »
» » » If the ommited something from the patent, then it was just because of
» » » legal issues. There is no other reason then that.
» »
» » What kind of legal issues can there be with leaving lithium in there?
» » Please explain.
»
» I cannot imagine any other reason why someone would wilingly decrease
» range of their patent, if, only, the reason was not a collision with
» something that someone already patented or there was some other legal
» issue.

They may have decreased their range with the 2nd patent but the 1st patent is still exist doesn’t it? Everybody’s natural choice is to follow the most updated patent.