This "third party" is yours truly, Peter H. Proctor, PhD, MD.
This statement seems to be a shortened reprise of Centaur's earlier statement. Among other matters, Renovis similarly does not inform investors that, in my '502 patent, stroke is named as an indication, "parenteral" as a means of administration, and all elements of phenybutylnitronedisulfonic acid ("Cerovive") are claimed. Likewise, as the abstract notes, my claims are "for ameliorating a cellular dysfunction of a tissue" by "administering a nitroso or nitrone spin trap such as N-t-butyl-.alpha.-phenylnitrone (PBN) to the affected tissue".
That is, Cerovive comes under the '502 patent by even the narrowest reading. Moreover, this patent has a priority date several years before their earliest one. They have yet to respond to any of this.
Full disclosure: Correctly, Renovis does not assert I claim their current use of Cerovive (or other nitrones) "infringes" my patents. Likewise, as they note, there is no legal action pending and none has been threatened.
Cerovive is in clinical trials. Renovis takes full advantage of 35 USC § 271(e), which excludes from patent infringement any activity " solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products". Moreover, most drugs in this process never make it to the stage of applying for FDA-approval. Only at this point can "infringement" occur.
That is, to my knowledge, Astrazeneca and Renovis' use of Cervive does not infringe right now. Nor may they ever infringe. Thus, the present absence of legal action signifies nothing with respect to any future intent to enforce intellectual property rights. Just in case you were wondering.
Speaking of intellectual property: " Cerovive " is the registered trademark of the Astrazeneca corporation for PBN disulfonicacid or "NXY-059".