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: nigel bates who wrote (230)	9/8/2000 10:51:45 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1833

Nigel: Since KDUS cratered and I switched to the evil side (sold SIBI after the Merck offer), I have consistently said that I no longer have interest in the court. I am interested in potential, future royalty flow. On the basis of cash-in-hand, Axiom, and potential milestone and royalty flow from OSIP-proprietary and OSIP-Solvay, I consider this to be a good investment. Anything else related to infringement is/was/may be icing on the cake. From the SIBI stand, Miljenko and I consistently said that KDUS was infringing SIBI claims. That is clearly the case. Dave might argue or remind me that I challenged him to find prior art, that I couldn't. That is correct. I will be overjoyed if either the PTO or the court can make prior art stick, if my previous search can be shown to have been insufficient. Overjoyed because I'm an investor, and I'm for the side where my bets are placed. I'm a whore, if you like, in this issue. That's been apparent for some time, and I'm riding my third big win on the issue. It would not have been obvious to me, 2/88, to use recombinant cell lines as a screen to develop new drugs. Stumpo et al., to me, was not sufficient to invalidate the (methods/screening-related) claims. OTOH, I was making and testing monoclonals for their capacity to protect against bacterial infections. I was not familiar with the art of drug discovery, and can't comment on "obvious" in that context. I think that both the majority and dissenting opinions are clearly stated, and that both have strengths. Please ask a patent attorney. Then please ask another 99 patent attorneys, and I'll go with the majority vote. I don't know if it's a foul to combine references to argue for "obvious". My stance has been clear and stated repeatedly.... IMO, a KDUS investment is sound, escrow cash in-hand or not. Given that secure, warm/fuzzy feel, and for a buck fifty per share in cash, it's not worth, IMO, further effort and time to delve deeply into the issue. At that time, one can tuck away a component of a "biotech basket" and go find another one. We've been in this huge sector rally. My style of biotech investing -- downside protection with leverage -- just isn't attractive. Nonetheless, it's what I do. The PTO has twice ruled in favor of KDUS, the most recent ruling apparently coming in July. I doubt that Merck cares much about this verdict, and suggest that they are focused on a final argument to the PTO. A variety of very sincere scientists have been working on the analysis of these claims for years. They've argued in a variety of forums. And yet it comes down -- currently -- to a split decision, with a strong dissenting opinion, among judges that clearly understand the issues. This is no easy call, and it should have been settled with a license agreement. If you want to talk "obvious", one can confidently say that the original KDUS stance was not wise. This is not 20-20 hindsight. It was clearly stated, years ago here at SI, after Miljenko and I had discussed the issue over beers in La Jolla. To be brief.... I agree with both sides and punt. I prefer that courts allow broad claims, but, as I learn more about small molecule discovery, I lean less toward Sibia that I did previously. If there were a "correct" or "ethical" stand here, I wouldn't be whoring. Rick