-----Original Message-----
From: Clive Bunn <clive_bunn@bioaust.com.au>
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 2:57 AM
Subject: RE: PAI-2
Reply to: RE: PAI-2
Dear Mr. Morton
In reply to your recent questions, I cannot respond in
numerical terms, as the agreements between Biotech Australia and Cistron are commercial-in-confidence. Suffice it to say that the wording of the Cistron filing " ..... sublicense to .......... make, use, and sell PAI-2...." , is an accurate description of the situation. This is a normal commercial agreement, and Biotech Australia is proceeding to develop PAI-2 for clinical use.
Thank you for your interest.
Clive L. Bunn, Ph.D.
Walter Morton wrote:
>Thank you for responding to my last email. However, I am confused as to who
>has the patent on PAI-2. Is it Biotech Australia Pty, Ltd or Cistron
>Biotechnology?
>
>I found Biotech Australia's patents dated 1995:
>
>http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05422090__
>http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05444153__
>
>
>And I believe Cistron Biotechnology has a patent claim dated in 1990
>(through a university partner):
>
>http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US04923807__
>
>I found out about Biotech Australia Pty, Ltd when I read this in a Cistron
>Biotechnology SEC filing:
>
>"In May 1993, Cistron granted an exclusive sublicense to Biotech Australia
>Pty. Limited ("Biotech"), a jointly owned subsidiary of Hoechst A.G. and
>Hoecsht Australia Ltd., to make, use and sell plasminogen activator
>inhibitor ("PAI-2") protein in the U.S. using technology contained in
>Cistron's PAI-2 DNA patent. Cistron has recently initiated development of a
>PAI-2 assay, using Biotech's reagents, which, if successfully developed,
>Cistron would sell to the North American research market."
>
>Now, I am no patent expert nor am I a biologist. Also Cistron will not
>respond to my email. So, I must ask you these questions:
>
>As you stated before: "We have developed and patented a gel formulation for
>topical application of PAI-2 to the skin. In addition, we have extensive
>world-wide patents on PAI-2, both for the original isolation of the molecule
>and for specific disease applications." Is the "extensive world-wide
>patents on PAI-2" what Cistron is referring to when it states that "Cistron
>granted an exclusive sublicense to Biotech Australia Pty. Limited?"
>
>What is Cistron sublicensing to Biotech?
>
>Was Biotech able to create the "gel formulation for topical application of
>PAI-2" without the Cistron sublicensed PAI-2 patent?
>
>If Biotech Australia successfully markets PAI-2 in the form of a topically
>applied drug that has been clinically proven to help heal ulcers, does all
>of that money go to Biotech (and its investors) or does Biotech have to give
>Cistron a portion based on sales volume?
>
>Is Biotech has to pay Cistron some amount based on sales volume of the new
>PAI-2 topical drug, will that amount be very small as compared to the amount
>that Biotech (and its investors) would receive?
>
>Thank you,
>
>Walter Morton
I sent this email to him early in September. It took him
more than a month and one-half to respond. That's not
the best way to get investors.
I wonder why they need investors. They were part of that
big biotech company that merged with PMC's parent company. |
