Lawsuit snip from the recent 10-K updates the 8-K:
>>On August 9, 2001, AntiCancer, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, against us and other third parties. The complaint alleges five causes of action, including trade libel, defamation, intentional interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and unfair competition. These claims are based on alleged false statements made by unidentified employees and/or third parties regarding AntiCancer’s products. AntiCancer seeks unspecified general and exemplary monetary damages arising from the alleged impact of the alleged false statements, as well as its costs and expenses incurred in connection with the lawsuit. The Court recently denied our motion for summary judgment of the case, and trial is scheduled to begin on September 19, 2005. We believe the complaint is without merit and are mounting a vigorous defense.
On March 7, 2005, AntiCancer filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of five patents of AntiCancer. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief against the alleged infringement. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against such infringement claims, including contesting the validity of AntiCancer’s patents. Even if we prevail in these lawsuits, the defense of these or similar lawsuits will be expensive and time-consuming and may distract our management from operating our business. <<
and from the S-1:
>>One of our primary patents covering our method of in vivo biophotonic imaging is presently subject to a re-examination proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This re-examination was requested by an unidentified third party and was not initiated by the Patent and Trademark Office. Although the re-examination is still pending, the claims have been amended such that the claims presently being reviewed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are narrower in scope than the claims that originally issued, although such narrowed claims do not affect our ability to collect revenue from our current licenses. At the conclusion of the re-examination, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could issue a re-examination certificate allowing the patent to issue again with claims having a narrower scope than the originally-issued claims, or it could reject all claims thereby invalidating the patent, which would prevent us from charging our commercial customers a license fee to practice the methods claimed by this patent.<<
My money says AntiCancer is behind the patent re-examination request, too.
A look at the chart shows XGEN's recent swoon from $6.5 to the present sub-$5 range is a two part number that correlates pretty well with the filing dates of the 8-K and 10-K.
Cheers, Tuck |
