Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : SIBIA Neurosciences (SIBI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (399)	6/24/1999 7:04:00 PM
From: John Metcalf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

Fascinating discussion, DAK, Peter, and Rick. So, Pfizer does have a published theory in this litigation, but it is not prior art, as was hypothesized. OTOH, the dispute over whether royalties should be paid (Pfizer's case) has no bearing on whether the patent is valid and enforceable. If SIBI were to offer different terms, would Pfizer retract or amend their complaint? For example, a license to use '629 might be offered for $X, or $Y + royalties. If so, would PFE have a remaining complaint?