To: Jerry Olson who wrote (89906 ) 3/23/2000 2:46:00 PM From: Lane Hall-Witt Respond to of 120523
OJ -- AMGN (and TKTX, CEGE): I generally agree, but short-term I'm pretty nervous about the lawsuit. I'm neither a scientist nor a lawyer, but I "intuitively" like TKTX's position better than AMGN's. It seems that TKTX really has developed a unique methodology for producing erythropoietin (gene-activation; AMGN uses a closing technique). I'm not keen on the strategy TKTX's lawyers have employed, claiming that gene-activation is structurally equivalent to the urinary procedures for manufacturing erythropoietin that are not covered by the AMGN patent. That seems to muddy the waters, since TKTX's technique isn't literally a urinary method. Nevertheless, it seems to me (intuitively!) that TKTX's claim rests upon the more compelling principle: the non-urinary restriction is meant to illustrate a general principle that says AMGN can patent its prorietary cloning methodology, but not the substance erythropoietin itself. I think this is where the TKTX lawyers should make their stand. For what it's worth, the market seems to be liking TKTX a lot these past few days, while AMGN has been hamstrung. By the way, CEGE is a good "back-door" play on the TKTX side of this case. It has licensed gene-activation technology to Aventis (TKTX's corporate partner) for GA-Epogen and stands to garner royalties if GA-Epicor comes to market. On top of that, there is speculation that the second gene-activation technology CEGE licensed to Aventis is a building block for GA-Neupogen, which is rumored to be under development by TKTX and Aventis to compete with Neupogen. A win for TKTX could be a very big win for CEGE indeed.