Re: The HVSF patent
My understanding is that this is the first real HVSF patent number that anyone has come up with. The IBM patent server is only current to Jan. 20, 1998, patents.ibm.com and does not return a find on 5,718,917. (For fun, check out the wacky patent section sometime, I think my grandmother RIP has a couple in there.)
My suspicion is that it is the carrier of alprostadil that has been patented, the "liposomes" or the cream liquid base. The HVSF Press releases says the title of patent is, "PGE-1 CONTAINING LYOPHILIZED LIPOSOMES FOR USE IN THE TREATMENT OF ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION". This would meet the "not obvious", "new art" and "useful" criteria required to be patented.
There was a reason I put the following phrase in the billboard at the top of the thread. <<It is important to note that it is the delivery system and not alprostadil which is covered by patent. This patent bars competition with this delivery approach, regardless of the chemical used.>> The reason was HVSF.
I imagine the current HVSF/VVUS litigation in Nevada is over the applicator, not what you put in it. If HVSF is barred from using the transurethral approach, they will still have a product, the carrier patent to sell.
From some of the more reliable posters on the HVSF thread, HVSF has not even gone through Phase II trials yet. So no real product exists to this point.
VVUS stock seems to be improved a bit this week.
iqc.com
Zebra |
