Paul,
Sometimes competition helps a company increase total sales by increasing consumer awareness for a product. In that case, the market leader will win as long as they recognize the competition and don't lose their edge. There are many examples of how markets were greatly expanded by competition, and how the market leader came out far better than if the market hadn't been expanded. This is the main reason that many technology companies prefer to open their architectures. It increases competition, but increases the size of the market.
Assuming that Quigley's new product in manufactured in accordance with patent number 5,622,724, as stated in their press release, I don't think it violates Matrixx's patent, number 6,080,783. I am not an attorney, but I don't see how a company can claim that another company violates their patent if they develop a product in accordance with an entirely different patent. This could only occur if the USPO messed up and approved two patents that violate each other. In that case, and given my limited business law background, Matrixx would come out the winner in any legal action because Zicam has been on the market for over three years. I think that the question is whether Quigley's new product is even effective. Matrixx's patent references the patent that Quigley is using to manufacture their nasal spray, and it says that sprays aren't effective because they aren't viscous enough and don't contain an ingredient that maintains zinc in a negative ionic state.
Here are links to both patents if you want to read them.
Matrixx's patent:
patft.uspto.gov
Patent 5,622,724 referenced in Quigley's press release today.
patft.uspto.gov
It is worth noting that Quigley doesn't own the patent that they are using for their nasal spray. They must have either purchased the patent rights from Kappa Pharmaceuticals or are paying a license fee to them. I couldn't find any information on Kappa Pharmaceuticals during a brief search on the Net earlier. One has to wonder if Quigley has clinical data to back up any claims that they intend to make in their advertising. The FTC already forced them to stop making claims with regard to the benefit of Cold Eeze on children because they didn't have any clinical data to back up their claims. |
