SI
SI
discoversearch

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: scaram(o)uche who wrote (402)6/24/1999 8:00:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 579
 
Rick, I reproduced the following piece from DAK's post <<The action was filed by PFE in anticipation of a patent-infringement suit by SIBI. PFE is seeking a declaratory judgement from the court to the effect that PFE has not infringed the patents, that the patents are invalid and that SIBI is misusing its patents.>>

Note, they still want to say that the patents are invalid (why? - I'd say the alleged and mysterious prior art is not out of the picture); PFE is not infringing (well, I guess one has to see what they do versus what SIBI claims). Only the last, kind of funny, point "SIBI is misusing its patents" falls under this pseudo ethical category.

One question re. C-B: how far downstream does one have to pay royalties to Stanford because of this? I understand sales of recombinant protein products are covered, but how about sales of small molecules (drugs, insecticides, etc) that were discovered by use (rational drug design, screening, etc) of a cloned protein; cloning that presumably used techniques ultimately covered by or derived from C-B?

The issue of "royalty stacking" (legal, ethical or fair I don't know) has been a point of discussion (whining) by several pharmaceuticals in recent years. I am trying to see this PFE maneuver in the same context. DAK is right in seeing implications for INCY and many other "tool" companies.

PB