And the latest salvo:
>>NEWTON, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 25, 2004--Pro-Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Amex: PRW - News), a developer of novel therapeutics for cancer treatment, reports that GlycoGenesys, Inc. (Nasdaq: GLGS - News) filed counterclaims against Pro-Pharmaceuticals and David Platt, Ph.D., its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in response to the lawsuit Dr. Platt instituted against GlycoGenesys in January.
Dr. Platt and Pro-Pharmaceuticals believe these counterclaims are without merit and will contest them vigorously.
Earlier this month, Dr. Platt notified GlycoGenesys by letter alleging breaches of material provisions of his license agreement and expressed his intention to terminate the agreement if the breaches were not cured within 60 days. Among other things, Dr. Platt alleged that GlycoGenesys failed to take necessary steps to perfect the U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 08/024,487 and use its best efforts to commercialize the licensed technology.
The license agreement covers GlycoGenesys' GCS-100, a modified pectin material previously known as GBC-590. GlycoGenesys recently reported to Dr. Platt that it has elected not to pursue patent prosecution of the modified pectin material in Europe, China, Israel, Japan, Brazil and Canada, such that prosecution and related commercial rights have reverted back to Dr. Platt. Dr. Platt developed this pectin-based technology prior to founding GlycoGenesys in 1993.
Dr. Platt was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of GlycoGenesys until May 2000. He founded Pro-Pharmaceuticals in July 2000. Pro-Pharmaceuticals has developed patented technology involving carbohydrate compounds as a targeting mechanism intended to upgrade the safety and efficacy of anti-cancer agents now in widespread use.
In his lawsuit, Dr. Platt alleges that GlycoGenesys, among other things, breached his separation agreement, which terminated in June 2002. Dr. Platt seeks monetary damages and other relief.
The counterclaims of GlycoGenesys include breach of contract, tortious interference with the separation agreement, and misappropriation of proprietary rights, for which GlycoGenesys seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. <<
Well, this should be interesting. GLGS basically gives these smaller markets up. Neither company wants to spend the money on developing and defending them, but PRW wants GLGS to do it so PRW can collect royalties without lifting a finger. And GLGS seems to be claiming that Platt used GLGS know-how for PRW. At least, this is how I understand it. Oh, jeez, now I have to go and read the whole damn agreement, I suppose. Yuck.
Cheers, Tuck |
