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

To: Krikor who wrote (1419)	12/7/1999 1:49:00 PM
From: Mr. Park	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1754

This is the biggest joke of wall street in a while. VISX is not the joke but rather it is all the knee-jerk money firms trying to ge their clients out of VISX. Everyone has downgraded VISX except one firm. Visx will be in the 60 and should be in the 60's. Here is gs 09:01am EST 7-Dec-99 Goldman Sachs (KEUSCH) VISX VISX, Incorporated : ITC finds Nidek not to infringe, VISX fundamentals intact; GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS Goldman, Sachs & Co. Investment Research VISX, Incorporated * * ITC finds Nidek not to infringe, VISX fundamentals intact; TB * * *************************************************************************** * We are maintaining our trading buy on VISX shares. The administrative * * law judge for the ITC released her Initial Determination last night that* * Nidek was found not to infringe on VISX's patents. At this point, there * * is little information as the decision was delivered late yesterday. * * However, we do know that VISX (1) can appeal to the U.S. Court of * * Appeals, (2) VISX core method patents remain valid and enforceable until* * a Court of Appeals ruling, and (3) the company has saved its stronger * * patents for future suits. While the ITC decision was not a positive for * * the company, we note that the core patents remain in-place, there is no * * change to our 1999 and 2000 EPS estimates, and market growth is strong. * *************************************************************************** Investment Research =================== NOTE 8:53 AM December 07, 1999 ==================== Stk Latest 52 Week Mkt Cap YTD Pr Cur Rtg Close Range (mm US$) Change Yield --- ------ ------- ------- ------ ----- VISX, Incorporated TB 88.13 104-18 5667.6 303% 0.0% --------------Earnings Per Share--------------- VISX Mar Jun Sep Dec FY CY 2000 FY 1.75 1999 FY 0.29A 0.32A 0.36A 0.39 1.36 1998 FY(A) 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.59 -Abs P/E on- -Rel P/E on-- EV/NxtFY LT EPS Cur Nxt Cur Nxt EBITDA Growth ----- ----- ----- ----- -------- ------ VISX FY 64.8X 50.4X 2.3X 1.9X NA NA% =========================================================================== * We are maintaining our 1999 and 2000 estimates of $1.36 and $1.75, respectively. * In a somewhat surprising decision, the administrative law judge for the ITC ruled in an Initial Determination that Nidek did not infringe the VISX patents. As of last evening, the details of the ITC decision were limited as management was huddling with its legal counsel. We are aware that the decision found that (1) Nidek did not violate the L'Esperance patent and (2) a Trokel patent was found to be invalid due to improper inventorship. * VISX has indicated that it will now petition the full Commission of the ITC for a review of the Initial Determination. If the review is granted, the Commission is expected to issue its Final Determination by March 6, 2000. If a review is denied, the Initial Determination will become the Final Determination. Any Final Determination is subject to a review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We expect that any appeal process will take several years, so the overall patent landscape remains intact. As a result, the current competitive landscape remains status quo. * It is important to note that VISX sued Nidek for infringement on two apparatus patents, L'Esperance and one of the Trokel patents. As part of its overall legal strategy, VISX did not use its strongest patents, including the base Trokel patent that covers the method of ablation of corneal tissue. The stronger intellectual property was saved for use in a separate case against Nidek that is progressing through the Northern District of California courts. Thus, Nidek may have escaped this court appearance, but is facing far stronger method patents, rather than the apparatus patents used in the ITC suit. * Until there is resolution on several patent infringement suits, including an appeal at the ITC and the Northern District of California, VISX's patents remain valid and enforceable. As a result, we see little change to the competitive position for VISX. The company will still collect a $250 per procedure fee for surgeries performed on its market leading installed base. In addition, a strong technology base, superior service, and sophisticated physician support should help VISX maintain market share. With our 2000 estimate of $1.75 not assuming any revenues from license agreements and modest growth in the market to 1.3 million procedures, we have no reason to change our forecast based on the ITC decision as business is status quo. * In our opinion, a key to the near-term performance of VISX shares will be whether Bausch & Lomb, and to a lesser extent LaserSight, sign agreements to license the company's core intellectual property. With the core Trokel patent still valid and enforceable, we believe that there is a very good chance that both companies will license the technology from VISX. If a licensing agreement is not struck, we suspect that VISX will be aggressive in protecting its patents. * Separately, Bausch & Lomb shares are likely to benefit from yesterday's news. While we believe that B&L will likely still need to license the core VISX patents, the ITC ruling could give management some added fire power in its negotiations with VISX. We expect B&L shares to be strong today.