"Personally for me, it complicates things and leads to a lot of quesitons. If this patent application is approved, and Pfizer gets ownership of BET inibitors (including apabetalone) as a method of increasing frataxin...What is the impact?  If someone suffering from CKD takes apabetalone...the drug has the ancilliary effect of increasing frataxin in that individual I would assume."

Led, I really think this frataxin patent is much ado about nothing at this point in time. As I detailed in a prior post, RVX-208 elicited only a very modest increase in frataxin relative to the other tested BET inhibitors, many of which are owned by other big time pharma companies. RVX-208 would actually be one of the worst choices of BET inhibitors to use amongst their battery of tested BET inhibitors. The link in my previous post to the patent doesn't seem to work anymore, so try this or this. Additionally, this patent is for treating patients with autosomal recessive congenital ataxia caused by a mutation(s) in the gene which encodes frataxin. Resverlogix isn't seeking to increase frataxin levels and Resverlogix is not seeking to treat patients with Friedrich's ataxia. So there is no overlap in target patients. I don't see how Pfizer's patent, even if granted, would infringe upon Resverlogix's current programs. Lastly, even if (and that is a big IF because I don't understand patent law) Pfizer does have the ability to bring apabetalone into clinical trials for Friedrich's ataxia without Resverlogix's permission, Pfizer would have to start in Phase 1 and would be years and years and years away from proving itself in clinical trials for safety and efficacy. Apabetalone might not even be able to make it to the required target tissues to increase frataxin in the required cells. That patent was just in fibroblast cells in the lab.....no experimewnts in animals or humans. So many hurdles to overcome before I lose any sleep over this.

BDAZ