Richard,
Thanks for whatever I'm reading. The biotech is over my head, but I'm drawing this assumption: 629 is a SIBI patent using mammalian cells (as a process for drug discovery??), which KDUS is applying to yeast. KDUS claims it has prior art on the yeast, but SIBI got a patent first, so believes it owns the technique. Is that right?
My question is, is the 629 patent at the heart of the work which has the greatest potential for generating revenues and drug discovery at KDUS? Also as a side issue, are the other companies licensing 629 from SIBI, including Lilly, using it for yeast or mammalian cell work? Maybe these are questions for the IR.
In any case, the legal work in this dispute must be mind-numbing. Reading your claim one makes me think it must be very hard to substantiate the absolute integrity of a patent like this. Its understandable why most ultimately fall useless.
But I figure, disputed patent or not, there's a lot of drugs out there that can be discovered using the technique. Ultimately, SIBI may have a dispute on the KDUS use of 629 as a tool, but the potential for drug discovery from KDUS is still very great -- hence, in time, there may be a settlement on licensing 629, if that's the core of KDUS discovery process, but real revenue lies in the products KDUS or partners actually discover. Ends justifies the means argument. I can't make a judgment on the ethical considerations of bioengineers, but unless a wave of them quits at Kadus, I suspect that group is pushing on, either accepting legal argument or their own code of ethics, which may or may not be as rigorous as yours.
later, Steve |
