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 : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cytokine1 who wrote (7844)	4/10/2000 10:26:00 PM
From: lwd	Respond to of 9719

Nature Medicine April 2000 Volume 6 Number 4 pp 362 - 363 medicine.nature.com (needs subscription) Gene patent revisions to remove some controversies Tom Hollon Bethesda, Maryland There is something appealing about 'armchair biology' as a business strategy. Sequence millions of small chunks of DNA, blanket the genome with EST expressed-sequence tag) patents, stake claims to genes you know nothing about, and then kick back and let somebody else figure out what your stuff might be useful for. When they do, demand royalties. But the game could be up for EST patent applicants. On 1 March, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released proposed revisions to patent issuance guidelines that will effectively put an end to such practices. ESTs represent cDNA fragments 200-400 bases long. A few years ago, competing genomics companies launched a 'gold rush' into the human genome, racing to file US patent applications for more than a million ESTs. Based on sequence data, and usually little else, many applications claimed broad rights to genes and proteins associated with ESTs. Most of those applications are still pending. However, the USPTO is changing the guidelines for two of the standards used by patent examiners to issue patents: the utility standard, which refers to why an invention might be useful, and the written description standard, which pertains to disclosure of how an invention is made. Utility is a concept mostly important for chemical and genomics patents, for which inventors may not know the function of a chemical or gene at the time of filing. The revised utility standard rejects EST patents claiming broad rights to associated genes and proteins on two grounds: A DNA fragment is not useful as a probe for a gene without specifying what is being probed for; and a DNA fragment cannot be used for protein isolation without stating what the patent office calls the protein's "real world" use. The new written description standard,which, like the utility standard, will apply to all pending applications, also rejects EST patents: Sequences of cDNA fragments are insufficient to describe the genes they are associated with, and therefore are not sufficient to claim rights to them. John Doll, the USPTO director of biotechnology patent examination, says the revisions are unlikely to affect patents for full-length cDNAs or SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), which usually have narrowly based claims. But the chances that EST sequences alone can be used to claim genes and proteins, he says, are "slim and nil." EST applicants whose patents are officially rejected will be free to appeal in federal court, and because potentially billions of dollars are at stake, a court fight over EST patents looks certain. If so, it is possible the patent office's rejection of EST patents by two different standards is a preemptive strike, as it could be harder to overturn two patent standards than one. The guideline revisions, which will probably take effect by September, will not make all gene patent controversies go away, however. There is still the issue of function. A case in point is the recent outcry over the award of the CCR5 patent to Maryland-based Human Genome Sciences (HGS), declared by some as an outrageous decision by the patent office. A few years ago, several groups discovered that a cell surface protein now called CCR5 is an HIV co-receptor essential for viral entry into cells. HGS played no part in the discovery of this function, but had already applied for a patent on the gene. Since receiving the patent, HGS has licensed other companies to use CCR5 for anti-HIV drug discovery programs. William Haseltine, CEO of HGS, expresses sympathy for the researchers who lost out on the patent, but he says that HGS made its application based on its demonstration that CCR5 was a receptor for several inflammatory chemokines, and useful as a tool for discovery of anti-inflammation drugs. If someone else patents use of CCR5 for HIV-related applications, HGS will be ready to consider a licensing arrangement. The CCR5 case is not unique, according to Rebecca Eisenberg, professor of patent law at the University of Michigan. She recalls a similar story a few years back involving the receptor of leptin, an obesity regulation hormone: One group discovered the receptor's function; another owned the gene. With so many cDNA patents still pending,including a staggering 7,500 from HGS alone Eisenberg thinks the CCR5 and leptin receptor cases may be the tip of the gene patent iceberg.

To: Cytokine1 who wrote (7844)	4/11/2000 3:28:00 PM
From: Vector1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9719

CYTO, Sell 1500 shares of NBIX at 21 1/8. V1

To: Cytokine1 who wrote (7844)	4/11/2000 8:11:00 PM
From: Cytokine1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

VD's MODEL PORTFOLIO 4/11/00 Change -$53981 DOWN -4.64% Started 4/9/97, $100K . INDEX ^IXB DOWN -3.41% YTD EQUITY CHANGE 66.3% # CURRENT DAILY CURRENT COST TOTAL %GAIN/ % OF SYMBOL SHRS PRICE CHANGE %CHG VALUE SHR COST LOSS TOTAL ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= ======= INCY 1000 79.25 -12.00 -13.15% 79250 34.26 34259 131.3% 7.1% BTRN 3000 8.31 -0.44 -5.00% 24938 2.25 6750 269.4% 2.2% NPSP 2000 12.31 -1.19 -8.80% 24625 5.50 11000 123.9% 2.2% CELG 1800 101.13 1.88 1.89% 182025 27.10 48780 273.2% 16.4% CGPI 2000 13.00 -0.56 -4.15% 26000 9.00 18000 44.4% 2.3% GZTC 1800 17.75 -2.75 -13.41% 31950 7.737 13927 129.4% 2.9% MOGN 2500 29.50 -2.63 -8.17% 73750 17.00 42500 73.5% 6.7% TRMS 2500 46.38 0.13 0.27% 115938 21.771 54427 113.0% 10.5% SEPR 2000 78.38 -1.88 -2.34% 156750 42.356 84713 85.0% 14.1% CLTR 5000 29.94 -1.31 -4.20% 149688 16.756 83778 78.7% 13.5% VRTX 1500 45.38 -2.31 -4.85% 68063 70.083 105125 -35.3% 6.1% PDLI 500 87.31 -13.00 -12.96% 43656 74.000 37000 18.0% 3.9% MLNM 500 134.00 -15.50 -10.37% 67000 100.000 50000 34.0% 6.0% GLIA 3500 18.63 -0.38 -1.97% 65188 17.563 61469 6.0% 5.9% STOCK ______ ______ ______ ______ 1108819 651728 70.1% 100.0% SHORT SALE CREDIT ______ ______ 0 MARGIN MTCE. EQUITY 94.1% MIN 30% (65869) BUYING POWER $ ______ 977081 EQUITY (NAV) ______ ______ ______ 1042950 100000 942.9% ^IXB INDEX 1,028.08 -36.32 -3.41% 302.42 240.0% NOTES: OPEN orders subject to available buying power--- Expenses for Fiscal yr ending 4/8/00 will be posted within two weeks? . . . . 04/11/2000 31687.5 SELL 1500 NBIX @ $21.125 04/04/2000 -50000 BUY 500 MLNM @ $100.00 03/30/2000 -37000 BUY 500 PDLI @ $74.00 03/30/2000 -8200 BUY 100 INCY @ $82.00 03/21/2000 33437.5 SELL 2500 EPPH.OB @ $13.375 03/17/2000 -29500 BUY 1000 MOGN @ $29.50 03/10/2000 -32500 BUY 500 VRTX @ $65.00