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 : Biogen -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: P.M.Freedman who wrote (1112)	8/17/1999 3:55:00 PM
From: William Partmann	Respond to of 1686

Thank you, but I have read the 10Q and it says nothing even remotely close to your original post. Your reference to authority is not only misleading but it is blatantly false. In your original post you state: <<I am expecting a settlement between the two parties involved in the law suit before the final trial.>> Certainly there is no suggestion of settlement in the 10Q. I am attaching the relevant 10Q infra. The only statement in the 10Q is found in the Safe Harbor Statement under Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This statement is usually written by attorneys giving the worst case scenario of events that could effect the company. It's the CYA section of the filing. << I believe it may be good for Biogen not to take the final trial risk.>> There is no mention in the 10Q that settlement would be good for the company. The only settlement that would be good for the company would be if Berlex drops the case. All trials involve risk but the risk must be analyzed and quantified. Why give away your patents if the risk of losing is 10%. <<It is not a simple case to tell who could be a winner.>> If you don't know the law and you don't know the facts, then how you can say whether it is a simple case or not or predict the winner? <<If that easy, the case won't be last so long.>> You obviously don't know the judicial system. These cases can take two to three years before trial. It just depends on how desperate the other side is and how much money you want to spend. In summary, the 10 Q merely states that a loss to Berlex would have a material adverse effect. If there is another section of the 10Q that I missed, please post it so I can respond. <<Why do you guys so upset with the case?>> I am not upset with the case at all. Lawsuits are part of the cost of doing business in a free society. I do object to posters with ulterior motives. If you posted that you have worries about the adverse outcome of this litigation, that would be a worthy topic. Litigation is worrisome for all companies. However, if through your posts, you infer that Biogen is going to lose the exclusivity of its patent(s) and present no evidence, then I take offense because your motive becomes suspect. <<It was not a rumor. It is a fact related to Biogen. Got it!? >> You present no facts. The only fact you presented was that a lawsuit exits between Biogen and Berlex. I rest my case. Got it?! ************************************************* August 4 1999 10Q <<....Dependence on AVONEX(R) Sales and Royalty Revenue The Company's ability to sustain increases in revenues and profitability will be primarily dependent on the level of revenues and profitability from AVONEX(R) sales. The Company's ability to sustain profitability from sales of AVONEX(R) will depend on a number of factors, including: continued market acceptance of AVONEX(R) worldwide; the Company's ability to maintain a high level of patient satisfaction with AVONEX(R); the nature of regulatory and pricing decisions related to AVONEX(R) worldwide and the extent to which AVONEX(R) receives and maintains reimbursement coverage; successful resolution of the lawsuit with Berlex related to the "McCormick" patents, which if decided in Berlex's favor could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position and results of operations; success in revoking the Rentschler patent since if the patent were to be upheld and if Rentschler were to obtain, through legal proceedings, a determination that the Company's sale of AVONEX(R) in Europe infringes a valid Rentschler patent, such result could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operation and financial condition;...>>