>>BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 11, 2004---GlycoGenesys, Inc. (NASDAQ:GLGS - News), a biotechnology company focused on carbohydrate drug development, today announced that it has received a favorable decision in final and binding arbitration proceedings. The arbitration was brought by the Company against David Platt, its former CEO, who is now CEO of Pro-Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMEX:PRW - News).
Today's favorable ruling affirms the Company's exclusive rights to the disputed intellectual property. This intellectual property relates to GCS-100, the Company's lead drug candidate. The decision in favor of GlycoGenesys is final and binding and is only appealable based on strict and limited grounds. Under today's ruling Platt, as inventor, continues to prosecute patent applications covered by the license agreement for the benefit of the Company and the Company retains exclusive rights to the technology.
Bradley J Carver, CEO and President of GlycoGenesys, Inc. stated, "The 'cloud' that has overshadowed GlycoGenesys' accomplishments and intellectual property this year is now lifted. Our exclusive rights to GCS-100 have been undeniably determined. The value of past and future achievements relating to GCS-100 can now be properly recognized."
Mr. Carver continued, "We are sometimes required, as in this case, to take legal actions to defend and secure what is rightfully ours. This victory is an important milestone and good news for shareholders and employees who stayed the course with us. In accordance with today's ruling, Platt's prosecution of the patent applications in question will be solely for the benefit of the Company and this decision leaves no doubt to our rights under the license agreement to develop and commercialize GCS-100."
Legal synopsis of the decision
The arbitrator found that Platt had breached the license agreement by filing a patent application related to those already covered by the agreement without having informed the Company and affirmed the Company's position that Platt's subsequent patent application is also covered by the agreement. The arbitrator rejected Platt's contention that the Company had breached the license agreement and refused to terminate the agreement, as Platt had requested. Instead, the arbitrator found that the Company retained its exclusive rights to the technology in question. The arbitrator allowed Platt to continue prosecuting the patent applications in which he is listed as inventor, finding that Platt had not relinquished an inventor's right to control prosecution of his applications. Prosecution of the applications is for the benefit of the Company, which retains exclusive rights to develop and commercialize them. <<
snip
Cheers, Tuck |
