>>BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 12, 2004--GlycoGenesys, Inc. (NASDAQ: GLGS - News) issued a statement today to dispel potential investor misconceptions regarding its intellectual property portfolio.
Bradley J Carver, CEO and President of GlycoGenesys, Inc., stated, "I would like to set the record straight on intellectual property relating to GCS-100. Recently, there has been shareholder confusion around GlycoGenesys' intellectual property, particularly in light of the announcement that foreign patent applications that the Company previously determined to stop prosecuting appear to be on track for issuance. The announcement by Pro-Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMEX: PRW - News) about the return of these patent applications by GlycoGenesys, appears to have potentially misled some shareholders into thinking we had relinquished foreign rights relevant to commercializing GCS-100 or other modified pectins of value. This is not the case. I want to emphasize that GlycoGenesys remains free to pursue the commercialization of GCS-100 in the United States, Europe and other foreign countries."
"We are convinced, based on our own and independent scientific review conducted by Peter H. Seeberger, Ph.D. and our outside patent counsel, that the relinquished foreign patent applications have no commercial value to GlycoGenesys. Importantly, any subsequent issuances of these flawed filings have no impact on our commercialization strategy for GCS-100. Very simply, there was and there is no need for GlycoGenesys to pursue potential patent applications that have no relevance to GCS-100 or our future clinical development efforts."
In discussing his review of the filings, Dr. Seeberger, Professor of Chemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Affiliate Professor at The Burnham Institute, La Jolla, California and Visiting Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated, "The foreign patent filings returned by GlycoGenesys require a particular repeated sequence in the claimed polymer. From my review of these applications, the relevant scientific literature on pectin structure, and my first-hand knowledge of carbohydrate chemistry, I don't see how the polymer claimed in these filings could be produced from pectin. Nor do I believe that GCS-100 is covered by the structure claimed in these filings."
Mr. Carver added, "Specific reasons why GlycoGenesys discontinued the prosecution of certain foreign patent applications include the following:
1. The filings in question have no impact on the commercialization
strategy of GCS-100 since the patent applications are limited
in scope and apply only to a highly specific structure, which
is not GCS-100. They will not prevent GCS-100 from being
commercialized in Canada, Europe or other foreign
jurisdictions. The filings were returned for the simple reason
that they could not be used to obtain patent protection
covering GCS-100 or other relevant modified pectins. In fact,
David Platt argued to the European Patent Office that the
claims of the European filing did not cover GCS-100.
2. Based on prior review, and further supported with recent,
scientific and legal counsel, we believe patents, if any, that
may issue from these foreign patent applications have no
commercial value.
3. We believe these foreign patent applications would not
withstand challenge due to inherent flaws in their claims. We
have the opportunity to challenge and knock out these foreign
patents, if issued, through a straightforward opposition
process. We will evaluate whether it is in the Company's best
interest to enter such an opposition for patents that don't
have commercial value and don't impact our commercialization
strategy for GCS-100."
"Our portfolio of patents and patent applications, which we exclusively own or license, contains a broad range of claims covering the manufacture and use of GCS-100 in the U.S. and foreign countries. As disclosed previously, the Company has made and continues to make patent filings to protect new uses for and improvements to GCS-100 and its manufacturing process in the U.S. and foreign countries, further strengthening our intellectual property portfolio and commercialization strategy."
"For example, in January 2004 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued to the Company U.S. Patent No. 6,680,306 "Method for Enhancing the Effectiveness of Cancer Therapies" covering the use of GCS-100 and other carbohydrates that bind to galectins prior to or in combination with chemotherapy or surgery for the treatment of cancer."
"We continue to vigorously prosecute our lawsuit against David Platt and Pro-Pharmaceuticals, Inc. including claims under which we seek an order requiring Pro-Pharmaceuticals to assign to us all rights in Davanat®, among other inventions, and a permanent injunction against David Platt and Pro-Pharmaceuticals to prevent them from developing or selling polysaccharides, such as Davanat, to treat cancer. Further, in a recent hearing, the arbitrator in our dispute concerning our License Agreement with Platt ordered an accelerated schedule so that we may move toward quickly enforcing our contractual rights under the License Agreement. We are extremely pleased with this decision to expedite the arbitration process and look forward to putting it behind us so that we can focus all of our attention on our mission of developing drugs to treat patients with cancer." <<
snip
Cheers, Tuck |
