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 : Cadus Pharmaceutical Corp. (KDUS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: N/E PATSFAN who wrote (113)	2/20/2000 5:29:00 PM
From: SunAge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1833

Does anybody have any idea on how long it takes for the U.S. Patent and Trademark office to re-examine a patent? Jeesuz, it has been 17 months since the original request. The wheel of justice seems to move faster than the wheel of patents and proprietary rights. Below is an October 1998 press release from Cadus. Cadus is attacking this issue on two fronts, i.e., the appeal and patent re-examination and on top of it, has set aside $18.0 million dollars. On March 9th, the U.S. Appeals Court will review the appeal. I personally think Cadus has a very high chance of winning this case. On another issue, I have a gut feeling that everybody on this board has sold their positions, what with all the thank yous, accolades and a quiet board. Or, is it more like the cat that ate the canary? Tarrytown, NY, January 11, 1999?Cadus Pharmaceutical Corporation (Nasdaq: KDUS) today announced that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted its request to re-examine the patent issued to SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: SIBI) which is the subject of SIBIA?s patent infringement litigation against Cadus. SIBIA claimed that Cadus has infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,401,629, which issued to SIBIA in March 1995. This patent covers the use of cells engineered to express a cell surface receptor and a reporter gene to screen compounds. In December 1998, a jury issued a verdict in favor of SIBIA in the infringement suit filed by SIBIA against Cadus in 1996. Cadus continues to believe that it does not infringe the ?629 patent and further, that the ?629 patent is invalid. Cadus will appeal the jury verdict. Cadus filed a request with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine the ?629 patent in October 1998. The request identified six independent grounds on which Cadus believes the prior art, including references that were not cited to the Patent Office during the initial prosecution of the ?629 patent, renders the claims of the ?629 patent invalid. In its ruling granting the request for re-examination, the Patent Office cited all six grounds identified by Cadus. The re-examination by the Patent Office is independent of the verdict by the jury. The Patent Office makes its own determination of patentability. A final decision by the Patent Office that the claims of the ?629 patent are invalid would take precedence over the jury verdict. "The decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine this patent speaks to the issues raised by Cadus surrounding the validity of this patent. Cadus has provided to the Patent Office evidence that documents the existence of significant prior art. This evidence was not made available to the Patent Office at the time the patent was allowed. We believe that the Patent Office will not encounter the difficulties encountered by the jury at trial in understanding the science, the prior art, and the legal issues relating to the invalidity of this patent," said Dr. Charles Woler, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cadus.