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 : Incyte (INCY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RCMac who wrote (1141)	9/12/1999 11:36:00 PM
From: Gary L. Kepler	Respond to of 3202

Seems that V1 has lost confidence in INCY's future: Message 11221693

To: RCMac who wrote (1141)	9/13/1999 8:51:00 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3202

WSJ's take on the patent litigation [AFFX wins a round... lawsuit continues, etc.] much more low key than CBS.com [AFFX WINS!], Meanwhile H&Q [Richard Van Den Broek] reiterates a "buy", while Warburg [Rachel Leheny] goes from 'strong buy' to buy. It certainly continues to give AFFX further leads in the chip business... if the lawsuit has been hurting INCY chip revenue, that won't stop any time soon. DAK

To: RCMac who wrote (1141)	9/13/1999 9:37:00 AM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 3202

Some particulars: The PTO upheld AFFX's U.S. Patent No.5,744,305 covering arrays of nucleic acids with greater than 400 probes per square centimeter and No.5,800,992 covering two-color hybridization assays for gene expression analysis. A third AFFX patent allegedly infringed by INCY is No.5,445,934, covering aratys of greater than 1000 oligonucleotieds per square centimeter. The '934 patant was not included in the interference. Norviel, senior VP and general counsel at AFFX: "the consequence is quite clear- any jury is going to be looking at the action of the interference" he said "The coursts tend to defer to that dind of technical expertise. Many of Incyte's most important defenses have been damaged here severely" Lee Bendekgy, INCY general counsel says that while the PTO decision isn't helpful, the company has other avenues to defend itself in the litigation. First, appeal the PTO decision to Court of Appeals, or federal District Court... if that appeal is denied, the two patents INCY used to provoke the interference would not issue. INCY's arguements that AFFX's patents do not meet written escription or enablement requirements could be used again in court with additional eveidence that INCY has gathered since the interference began. Also, INCY plans to mount a broader defense in court than the arguements used at the PTO. "We have other invalidity defenses and we cerainly have non-infringement arguements" Bendekgey said. DAK