what does it mean to hold a "patent" on HM?

[elguapo]

If Intercytex holds some sort of patent on HM (Trichocyte), and the Phase II and Phase III trials are successful, does that patent prevent other companies from devising their own version of HM?

I'm asking because I saw an article that said that the British currency (pound I think) is worth $2.03 USD. So if HM costs, say, $20 K in British currency, that would be $40K USD. That's twice what I would be willing to pay for HM.

So then I thought, if Intercytex shows that the idea behind HM actually works, can another US company pursue their own version or method of HM?

Anybody know enough about patents to anwer this question?

Thanks.

 

[ginner]

I know a little bit about this, but I hope that someone who knows more can chip in.

You can't really patent an idea as such. You have to patent a process. So a company cannot say, "We have a patent on HM." They have to patent a particular process or way of doing HM. So Intercytex might have a patent on a certain way of culturing stem cells for implantation that no one else can use. But the idea of taking stem cells and using them to grow large amounts of hair can still be used by other companies. It just has to be in a different way.

Think about it like this. Finasteride was patented for a time and no one else could use it. Dutasteride does the same thing as finasteride in that it inhibits 5-AR, but it does it in a different way. It's a different drug. Therefore, it does not infringe the patent that was on Finasteride. See, you can't patent the idea of inhibiting 5-AR to stop hair loss. No company can 'own' that. But you can patent a particular way of doing it. Finasteride is one way of inhibiting 5-AR and Dutasteride is another. They can co-exist.

So in terms of HM, another company might be able to come up with a different method of using stem cells to create new hair. This would be ok. It would not necessarily infringe the patent that Intercytex might hold. This can get very technical though. Companies engage in extensive litigation with each other over exactly how different a process has to be. I have only given a simple explanation (because I'm certainly no expert) but I hope it helps. Let me know if you have any specific questions and I'll try to answer them.

The good news though is that yes, companies can still compete with Intercytex and they almost certainly will. After all, there is a lot of money to be made here.

 

[elguapo]

That's what I was hoping to hear.

My feeling is that if the process that Intercytex is using for HM works, then that proves the "theory" behind it. Then maybe other companies will join in and come up with their own HM scheme, knowing that there is a way to make it work. This will hopefully keep ICX from making HM too expensive for us normal guys to afford.

But I am getting ahead of myself. We have to wait and see if it even works before worrying about the cost.

 

[RaginDemon]

That's what I was hoping to hear.

My feeling is that if the process that Intercytex is using for HM works, then that proves the "theory" behind it. Then maybe other companies will join in and come up with their own HM scheme, knowing that there is a way to make it work. This will hopefully keep ICX from making HM too expensive for us normal guys to afford.

But I am getting ahead of myself. We have to wait and see if it even works before worrying about the cost.

exactly, even when HM is out, I am not going to be the first ones to try.