Which companies or institutions developed Memoblast and who sponsored its trials?

1. Who developed the therapy? Mesoblast as the originator of the MPC/Mesenchymal platforms

Mesoblast Limited is repeatedly identified in company profiles and product pages as the developer of the company’s proprietary allogeneic mesenchymal‑lineage and mesenchymal precursor cell (MPC) platforms and the lead product candidates derived from those platforms, including remestemcel‑L and rexlemestrocel‑L ^{[1] [2]}. Mesoblast’s public materials and listings make clear the firm’s central role: it owns the manufacturing, platform IP and the product pipeline described across investor and product pages ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Is “Memoblast” a named product in the available reporting? Short answer: not found

None of the supplied documents use the name “Memoblast.” Instead, reporting and Mesoblast’s own product pages use names such as remestemcel‑L (Ryoncil) and rexlemestrocel‑L (Revascor), and describe Mesoblast’s mesenchymal precursor/lineage technology platforms ^{[1] [2]}. Therefore, available sources do not mention a therapy labelled “Memoblast” and appear to reference Mesoblast’s family of therapies instead ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Who sponsored or funded trials and development? Partnerships, licensing and corporate financing

Mesoblast’s development programs have attracted commercial partners and financings. Public partnership pages list agreements granting rights in territories and co‑development arrangements — for example, Tasly Pharmaceutical Group was given rights in China for cardiovascular candidates, and Grünenthal partnered on MPC‑06‑ID (chronic low back pain) for certain territories ^{[3] [5]}. Mesoblast has also entered negotiations or agreements historically with large pharma companies (Mallinckrodt and earlier Cephalon are cited in background coverage) and uses corporate financings — for instance, a 2024 option to issue up to US$50 million in convertible notes tied to a product launch — to fund commercialization and development activities ^{[6] [4]}.

4. How do different sources characterise Mesoblast’s role and relationships? Corporate materials vs. secondary summaries

Mesoblast’s own investor and product pages present the company as developer and partner-seeker, emphasising proprietary manufacturing and platform ownership ^{[2] [7]}. Dealroom and database summaries echo that positioning, calling Mesoblast “developing and commercialising” allogeneic cellular medicines and listing funding/investor relationships ^[1]. Wikipedia and press‑release style items add historical details about past negotiations or potential partners such as Mallinckrodt and Cephalon but do not introduce a product called “Memoblast” ^{[6] [4]}.

5. Caveats, gaps and alternative interpretations

Because none of the supplied documents use the exact name “Memoblast,” there are two plausible explanations: either the user meant Mesoblast (the company) or a Mesoblast product, or “Memoblast” is an alternate/older name not present in these sources. Available sources do not confirm the existence of a product formally named “Memoblast” and therefore do not document sponsors or trial sponsors under that exact name ^{[1] [2]}. If you have a different spelling or a primary source that names “Memoblast,” supply it and I will reconcile that with these records.

6. Bottom line and next steps for verification

The materials supplied show Mesoblast as the developer of the mesenchymal lineage product candidates and list specific commercial partners (Tasly, Grünenthal) and corporate financings that have supported trials and development — but they never use “Memoblast” ^{[3] [5] [4] [2]}. To be definitive about sponsors tied to a product called “Memoblast,” request or provide sources that explicitly use that name; otherwise, treat Mesoblast and its named product candidates (remestemcel‑L, rexlemestrocel‑L) as the likely referents in current reporting ^{[1] [2]}.