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: margie who wrote (431)	6/26/1999 12:01:00 PM
From: James Strauss	Respond to of 579

A Jury Trial might Not Be Bad... Margie: Before a Jury, SIBI might be seen as David facing off against Goliath Pfizer... SIBI could call in Ely Lilly and American Home Products as witnesses on their behalf... It sounds to me like Pfizer sees a threat from little SIBI... A Jury of ordinary citizens could see this... Jim

To: margie who wrote (431)	6/28/1999 1:31:00 PM
From: Luke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 579

maybe I'm not supposed to read the parking posts, but anyways... I was interested in your discussion and posted because i was not happy that Sibi could leave themself open to get played like that. Of course pfizer would do whatever they could. If Sibi really threatened, like on paper, that would be a real silly thing to do, to put all this at risk. But there's a lot of "ifs". Along with having no legal background I realized afterwards that we dont know the status of this thing anyways (or do we?) - so the suit could easily get dismissed anytime if pfizer has no real evidence of a threat. And even if there was a threat, their invalidity or non-infringment arguments may not be accepted. I guess that would be a summary judgement then?. I guess sibi just has to inform people since it takes a while to get it resolved, but it still costs legal fees. Claims that there is prior art is routine and means nothing. What do y'all make of these Pfizer statements? BS? This seems like a lot of whining for a patent validity suit. Was there maybe an agreement in the past that pfizer might argue gave them rights under these patents, and that we would see another suit over a contract? Probably, though, it is support for a patent misuse arguement, (the arguemtn that if your opponent uses his patent against you improperly to extort $, the patent could be declared invalid). There was a fairly recent bigtime case that supported this line as a basis for invalidity, I think called Nobel or nobelpharma or something. I saw a good article and maybe can find it again for general interest. <<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.>> Since many of you are probably at that level, like Rick, what are your experiences in general about how these boardroom decisions on whether to pay or not are made? can one really make a good estimate of risk/reward?