You said BMG/R is licensed for central labs, blood banks and reference labs. How about hospitals? Everything I have heard has said that hospitals and Labs are covered. I think I understand what POC means - point of care; on the spot; stat; right then and there, by whoever and that even includes the patient or test subject. I could readily agree that the market for POC covers broad areas not remotely related to a hospital or to a lab. But I think I also see some potential for development of uses, such as a bedside monitors in a hospital, or even a mobile blood bank that checked each donor on the spot, and if those things work that will without regard to training of the testing person (and I think they will), then I can easily imagine every intern and nurse with one in the hip pocket for quickie tests when you didn't want to wait even the short time it takes to get to the lab and back. Are you saying you think that is too far-fetched? Or that there is something in the agreement which clearly delineates that BMG/R can't sell it simply because it is a different type device? Even if it is bought for use within the area they are licensed to sell to? Don't misunderstand. I am not hunting problems, but only suggesting the possibility that the agreement MAY NOT define things suffciently well to give an automatic answer. I am not remotely suggesting that BMG/R would automatically have rights to sell POCs just anywhere - I simply am unsure if they could sell them in hospitals and labs for whatever demand might there exist. If you speak from knowledge, I accept your answer. I don't know.
You did say there is no sale of reagents by Igen for Central lab. Educate me a little more. I read of Organon Technica, or whatever the name, which apparently had some sort of tests for a long time. Nothing so good as electsys. I concluded (admittedly without finding any clear-cut statement) that this entity was once Igen's main business, and that it made and sold the reagents, which had long been used but not in the electsys process. Is this in fact a third party? Does it have anything to do with the Reagents? Is it selling direct to BMG/R? I would guess that if it were operating at arms length from Igen then she might be unable to determine how much BMG/R buys - or is it that BMG/R is manufacturing and selling reagents?
I agree that the only way the lawsuit would hurt Igen is from failure to develop market share. That is not going to happen: I simply said that Sam probably gives concern to that. I feel pretty sure the share price would be acting much better if the suit were out of the way. I hope that you are again being prescient in hoping for dispute resolution when Sam returns. Sam has not only hinted that he could be holding off some sort of agreement, but he also has bluntly said that he doesn't like dealing with someone you can't trust and will not tie Igen's future to such an entity. Things are getting tough. He has the Restraining Order, which gives him a long leg up on an effort to cancel the agreement entirely if Igen pushes for that at trial. And I feel sure they will. But a court would look long and hard at all the investment BMG/R has made, and would be reluctant to just declare it a loss for that would be thought inequitable. If the court can be persuaded that there was a deliberate and knowing effort to defraud Igen of its rights, then such an inequitable decision would be less painful to the court.
The one thing that is really clear is that time helps make the cost of settlement more and more certain. You can look at what it would cost now and feel sure that 12 or 15 months ago, the case could have been settled for far less than Igen would remotely consider at this time. And you can look at any time period in the past and make the same statement as to that particular time. But defendants have an inherent stupidity that makes them totally unable to see that if they wait a further length of time, a settlement will cost them a great deal more than it would have cost earlier. My insurance company makes a business of litigation. I had to sue about a loss to my home - a large loss. I told them this loss is too large to ignore: your policy covers and I will sue. Four different times before judgement I made offers to accept a dollar amount in settlement. They knew I was a judge, that I had practiced law, that I showed determination at every step in the process. Each amount offered as settlement bait was larger than the prior offer, and all were less than the judgment they paid, which included legitimate costs which made the ultimate cost about 5 or 6 times the amount they could have settled for before suit was discussed. That is before they count their own cost of counsel and trial preparation. They probably spent in total, 10 times the initial settlement value. At no time did they make any offer greater than the approximate amount I had spent on counsel fees to that time. All too often they expect deliverance as from an Angel, and if an experienced insuror would act so, you can bet that Roche might not improve that record.
Hope springs eternal. Honest. |
