Amgen Inc. (AMGN) Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Amgen Inc. (AMGN)

AMGN 337.46

+0.4%

Nov 21 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JGoren who wrote (1007)	9/7/2000 12:03:45 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) of 1906

Follow up. If the lawsuit was already ongoing at the time of the application, or while it was pending, how could the lawsuit be material if TKT was not willing to file an objection with the PTO. I don't see how it can be material or that disclosure was necessary by Amgen unless TKT was willing to take action at the PTO before the patent was issued. Fraud is the failure to disclose a material fact; that is, I would presume in the patent context, one which would have affected PTO's decision to issue the patent on the merits. TKT's failure to object (assuming that the procedure does exist, as I believe it does) indicates that TKT, at the time, did not think an objection would have prevented issuance of the patent. If TKT didn't think so, then how could Amgen? And, how could the failure to disclose have met the element of wilfulness? This is what I mean by TKT taking a backdoor approach to gain an advantage when the facts (presumably) show an objection would not have prevented issuance of the patent and worse TKT didn't raise the issue. If I were Amgen, my rebuttal would be aimed in this direction and testimony about why no objection was filed if one could have been filed.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next