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 : Biotech Derivatives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (358)	8/13/1999 2:19:00 AM
From: sim1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 555

I was under the impression that at this point, things now hinge primarily on the outcome of the interference proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 5,800,992 (the '992 patent) at the PTO. That is, the court will not proceed until the interference is resolved by the PTO. If resolved in INCYs favor, what's left for the court to do? From a May 6, 1999 INCY press release... U.S. District Court Judge, Fern M. Smith held that Affymetrix failed to establish likelihood of success, because "Incyte's opposition has raised a substantial question regarding the validity of relevant portions of the '992 patent." "Because the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) interference involving claims 4 and 5 of the '992 patent may result in the assignment of inventorship of those claims to Incyte,..." Aren't we (and the court) awaiting the Patent Office here? incyte.com Full disclosure: The closest I've ever been to the law was having taken the LSAT many years ago, and I've received a couple (a few?) moving violations between then and now.