Who's really stalling?
Why?
No. Just no.
Anyone who would take a BAYER product should slap themselves.
Really? More Audits, in a Country that has more SPY TECH than people?
How about Accountability and Transparency for a change?
How about Short Trials and LONG SENTENCES?
More Audits mean more corruptibility. No fear of Consequences. Ruby's running a muck. No thanks!
I'm gonna to use this with muh NO TRESSPASSING SIGN
Dude needs a bit more research on his mRNA history… (how can there be suits, for a drug that wasn't patented?) How come DARPA and GATES were giving FUNDING to Moderna so long ago? How come Gates' 2010 year of the VAX plan never gets mentioned? I digress…
A British Columbia judge has issued a ruling that puts in doubt whether Moderna Theraputics will be able to commercialize some of its first products in clinical trials using key technology that it doesn’t own.
British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Dev Dley this week granted a request from Arbutus Biopharma for a pre-trial injunction that prevents a tiny company called Acuitas from sublicensing Arbutus’ lipid nanoparticle delivery technology until the end of October. Acuitas has sublicensed the technology four times to Moderna, which appears to be using it in the first two products it has put into clinical trials.
The ruling also makes clear that Judge Dley believes that Acuitas was never authorized to sublicense Arbutus’ delivery system for use in vaccines. The first two products Moderna put in human trials were vaccines and four of the five products Moderna has in the clinic are vaccines.
Moderna is a super hot private biotech company that has raised $1.9 billion. That includes deals it has made with big companies like Merck, Alexion and AstraZeneca, and investor cash most recently raised at a valuation of $5 billion. Led by Stéphane Bancel, Moderna is developing a new class of mRNA drugs aiming to turn human bodies into drug factories by directing cells to produce therapeutic proteins.
But getting the mRNA safely into the body’s cells is tricky. Acuitas, which is based in its CEO’s Vanouver home, sublicensed one delivery system to Moderna that wraps the mRNA in balls of fat. That delivery system belongs to Arbutus and last year it terminated Aquitas’ license to the technology. Acuitas turned around and sued Arbutus in Vancouver to preserve its rights to the techonology. Acuitas originally got the license as a result of a separate legal dispute and richly-funded Moderna tapped Acuitas for the delivery system instead of its actual owner, Arbutus.
In a Forbes article that focused on the delivery technology, Bancel said Moderna was no longer using Acuitas’ delivery system for new drugs and that Moderna was in the process of developing its own delivery system while licensing another one from Merck. When reached about this week’s court ruling, Moderna said “the injunction does not affect our agreements with Acuitas.” The injunction does not appear to impact Moderna’s ability to continue its human trials using Arbutus’ delivery technology under a patent research exemption.
Arbutus has claimed that Acuitas does not have a right to sublicense Arbutus’ delivery technology for vaccines and Judge Dley appears to agree with Arbutus. “I agree that Arbutus has a strong case,” Judge Dley wrote in his opinion. “Acuitas has sub-licensed Arbutus’ technology with respect to vaccines when such vaccines fall outside the provisions of the cross-license agreement.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2017/02/09/mysterious-5-billion-biotech-moderna-hit-with-legal-setback-related-to-key-technology/?sh=3af331ee75f7
Isn't this his fourth?