DYAX: Dyax Corp. 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 : DYAX: Dyax Corp.

DYAX 38.41

0.0%

Jan 25 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: keokalani'nui	5/21/2001 10:57:52 AM
	Read Replies (1) of 197

In April 1999, MorphoSys commenced an action against CAT in the US District Court of Washington DC concerning CAT's US ``Griffiths'' patent, which covers the isolation of antibodies from phage display libraries which specifically recognize human ``self'' antigens. MorphoSys asked the court to revoke CAT's patent and/or declare that MorphoSys does not infringe the patent; CAT filed a counter patent infringement action against MorphoSys. Following a hearing in March 2001, the US District Court of Washington was unable to reach a decision on all but one issue. The jury agreed on this one issue in favor of CAT, that the Company was entitled to the priority dates of its British patent applications. Several post trial motions have been filed with the court and the parties are awaiting the court's decision. If the court does not issue a dispositive ruling on the question of validity then the case will be retried at a later date to be arranged. There has been no change in the status of the legal action brought by MorphoSys in respect of CAT's US McCafferty patent since the 2000 Annual Report. With regard to the McCafferty patent litigation with MorphoSys in Europe, CAT is awaiting the written decision from the Opposition Division following the hearing last July. Receipt of the written decision triggers the four-month deadline for filing of any appeal. In respect of the litigation with Crucell, in response to motions filed by CAT's lawyers, the court declined jurisdiction for Crucell's non-infringement claim on Winter II and will assume jurisdiction only on the invalidity claim and limited to the Netherlands only. A similar ruling on jurisdiction is expected in the McCafferty case. CAT intends to defend both of these proceedings vigorously and does not believe that there is merit in these claims. Whatever the outcome of current litigation, CAT believes that its ability to operate its own technology will not be materially and adversely affected. In the six months CAT has increased its patent estate in the US with the granting of a new patent in the McCafferty family which provides protection for libraries of phage displaying functional protein binding domains derived from natural repertoires of nucleic acids, wherein each phage particle contains a phagemid genome. CAT still expects the first US patent from the Winter/Huse/Lerner family (part of the settlement with Scripps) covering antibody gene libraries to be granted in 2001. From CAT's interim report. Message 15828462

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next