SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : Repligen Corp (RGEN)
RGEN 166.82+0.2%Jan 9 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Cheryl Galt who wrote (226)5/22/2000 12:57:00 PM
From: Cheryl Galt  Read Replies (1) of 395
 
Parking notes - some history of the CTLA4 patent dispute with BMS
--------------------------------------------------------

7/17/98 - Repligen Sues Bristol-Myers Squibb Over Immune-System Discovery

The suit filed against the world's largest cancer-drug maker in federal court in Boston Friday seeks unspecified damages and asks the court to declare Dr. Craig Thompson a co-inventor. Repligen claims Bristol-Myers misused trade secrets in not crediting Thompson, who licensed his rights to the invention to Repligen.

Thompson conceived of the idea of using a protein called CTLA4 to regulate the body's immune system and told his research colleagues at Bristol-Myers, the suit said. Bristol-Myers researched the idea, then won a patent covering the protein's use without mentioning Thompson's contribution, according to the court filing.
---------------

3/10/2000 Update - disappointing news
- in an S-3/A --- Also, 2/17/2000 in an S-3/A
sec.gov

As referenced in our 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 1999
on July 17, 1998, we filed a complaint against Bristol-Myers Squibb Corporation (BMI)
seeking correction of inventorship of certain US patents which claim compositions and
methods of use for CTLA4 as well as unspecified monetary damages.

A correction of inventorship would result in the University of Michigan being designated as a co-assignee on any corrected BMS patent. We would then have rights to such technology pursuant to a 1992 License Agreement with the University of Michigan, a 1995 Asset Acquisition Agreement with Genetics Institute, and other related agreements.

On July 13, 1999, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice citing a lack of legal standing of Repligen to bring such a complaint.

We believe that the court's finding on standing was in error. The court did not rule on the validity of our inventorship claim. We continue to believe that the University of Michigan is a rightful co-assignee of the aforesaid BMS patents and we intend to continue to pursue the correction of inventorship. Our failure to obtain shared ownership rights in the patents may restrict our ability to commercialize CTLA4-Ig.
-------------------------

Cheers for Repligen's new strategy to achieve a patent for this important project.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext