Afaq,
The news about the counterclaim was in a news article I read several months ago but I cannot find it now and do not recall if it was on-line or in print. I will keep looking and check with IR at VVUS. I think the point is the same, if VVUS prevails in the current litigation, I would think that will be the end of HVSF, which has had no shortage of "going concern" talk in its SEC filings.
Speaking of HVSF got me to rummaging through my old disk on VVUS. If anyone recalls the recent Bearron's article where VVUS was hammered by that well-respected independent ED expert Dr. Irwin "let's ride a bike" Goldstein. You might want to look at these two items and wonder why Dr. Goldstien was a little negative about MUSE.....
From the HVSF 8k (I have replaced the words "the company" with "HVSF" for clarity):
<<<On October 1, 1997, the Company (HVSF) filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,801,587 (the "587 patent") in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. HVSF is the only plaintiff in the matter and VIVUS, Inc. is the only defendant.
...On or about August 29, 1997, defendant VIVUS sent a letter to HVSF claiming that HVSF's product for the treatment of male erectile disfunction, PGE1, infringed on claim 6 of the 587 patent. Defendant VIVUS claims to be the owner of the patent in question.
...On September 16, 1997, HVSF responded to VIVUS' August 29, 1997 letter and advised VIVUS that the company's new method for the treatment of male erectile disfunction does not infringe upon claim 6 of the 587 patent VIVUS claimed to own. HVSF's response identified several requirements of that claim which are completely absent in the corporation's method.
...On or about September 19, 1997, defendant VIVUS responded to Harvard's September 16, 1997 letter and reiterated its claim of infringement.
...Through the action filed in the United State District Court in the District of Nevada, HVSF seeks a declaratory judgment that the method developed and used by HVSF for the treatment of male erectile disfunction does not infringe upon claim 6, or any other claim, of the 587 patent. HVSF also seeks recovery of its costs and reasonable attorney's fees in connection with this action.>>>
And what does this have to do with the esteemed Dr. Goldstein?
<<<RENO, Nev., Sept. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Harvard Scientific Corp. (OTC-Bulletin Board: HVSF) announced today the hiring of Irwin Goldstein, M.D. as Principal Clinical Investigator.
...Harvard Scientific Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company that is developing products relating to the lyophilized liposomal delivery of Prostaglandin E-1 (PGE-1) for treating male erectile dysfunction and impotency. Harvard Scientific Corp. has a proprietary, patented delivery system that is painless in application. The company has completed its Phase I clinical trials and is moving ahead to complete Phase II/III.>>>
Do you think Dr. Goldstein was still on the HVSF payroll when he made the statements in Barrons disparaging the use of transurethral alprostadil? THE SAME APPROACH THAT HVSF IS TRYING TO USE? Can you say "pink slip"? <gg>
It is so refreshing to see men of science who's only concern is for the well being of others.
Zebra |
