And that’s why, especially for that population, the combination makes sense, right, because you basically can increased vaccine adherence by combining basically a vaccine against two digits in one. You can make it for patients convenient and basically, it’s better to have the side effects associated with the vaccine, a better to have it in one go with one shot rather than having a twice if it happens by two separate vaccines. That’s one part why we do believe it’s important to continue with the combination program. The other thing is that the health systems are really heavily burdened in many, many countries, and especially during the vaccination season again and COVID. And so by offering basically one combined vaccine is the relief also for the practices, applying those vaccines and pharmacies in the US.
And there, we also see a significant advantage
Unidentified Analyst: Thank you, Myriam,
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Charlie Yang with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.
Charlie Yang: Great. Thanks for taking my question. I have one on the patent infringement case. Can you just talk about the potential kind of appeal time line, I’m assuming the counterparty will appeal if in favor of CureVac? So how would that time line count potentially delay the damage in negotiation? And then I have a follow-up.
Alexander Zehnder: Thank you, Charlie. So a question on appeal and time line and impact on how that would impact the damages process. I’ll let Marcus comment further. But once in the case, we get elite confirmed an infringement confirmed as well at the end of December, that would start then just proceeding irrespective of a potential appeal. But I will let Marcus comment further on this.
Marcus Dalton : Yes. So Alexander is exactly right. So for Germany, you will — we would start the damages assessment in parallel with any appeal and the likely timing is about a year for both proceedings. And so the collection would happen at the end of next year, beginning of 2025, that sort of thing for the first case. In the US, if that was where your question was also a directed and appeal will also likely take place, and it would be another year from the ruling. So we expect the rolling October — end of October. It’ll be a three-week trial in the US and then the federal circuit rule roughly a year after. And then just would be collected at that point.
Charlie Yang: Great. And thanks for that. My second question is regarding the cancer vaccine. Can you just talk about kind of once we see the data in the first half of next year? Like how quickly can care by how move into the pivotal study? And then maybe just another one just in terms of kind of the broader cancer program. When should we expect to see the next control design for the other kind of indications? Thanks.
Alexander Zehnder: Charlie, Myriam, do you want to take that?
Myriam Mendila: Yes, of course. With pleasure. Thanks for the great question, Charlie. So regarding the GBM vaccine, this is a trial that we basically are conducting to show the proof of principle or that our vaccine platform works in the oncology setting. So far, we have shared and seen a very, very strong and promising preclinical data, but we have not tested so far our vaccine in the clinical section. So the glioblastoma trial is actually designed to show this, that the platform works that our cancer vaccine candidate induces strong immunogenicity in users CD8 and CD4 cell responses against the encoded antigens. And that’s why we selected the glioblastoma setting because we are encoding for antigens that have been shown to be immunogenic and glioblastoma patients.
At the moment, we do not have intention to take this vaccine candidate further into the next clinical setting because we have moved on to a much more advanced antigen discovery platform. And that’s what we have been working on for the last year, where we, again, took a different approach to antigen discovery because in cancer vaccines, it’s really all about finding the right cancer antigens and coding those inducing strong immunogenicity. So for these antigens, we have used in the glioblastoma trial, we know that they are immunogenic, but we do not know that they are the right ones to induce a strong clinical response. And so we really want to bring the output of our antigen discovery platform into the next vaccine candidates that we have been working on.
It will be in additional cancer indications. And where the plan is, again, you never know what science works out at the plans that we have a clever candidate nomination towards the end of this year, beginning of next year and are already planning to start the — basically, to start for the next Phase I trial exploring again the next vaccine candidate, which will encode for antigens that came out as a result of our new antigen discovery platform, which is much, much broader and much, much deeper in finding the right antigen compared to what was used and done in the past.
Charlie Yang: Got it. Thanks.
Myriam Mendila: Yes, got it. Yes, proof of principle is glioblastoma, but the sort of like pivotal programs and Phase I programs will be starting with a different candidates in the coming, let’s say, potentially 18 months. Maybe one thing to add is where we are going, again, based on our antigen discovery platform, we are going in two directions in the cancer vaccine space. One is basically designing of the shelf vaccines where we are encoding for antigens that are shared across different cancer types and patient population. And the other direction is the personalized cancer vaccine that basically every vaccine has to be manufactured for a given patient based on the genomic profile of the tumor of the given patient. And the first trial that we are right now planning is for shared cancer vaccines and in parallel, we are already preparing also for our first less cancer vaccine, but we’ll try to start later. I hope that answers your question.
