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 : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockDung who wrote (2923)	10/28/2000 7:01:32 PM
From: out_of_the_loop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Floyd, this is actually the only piece of information that you have posted here that I would find useful for an investor or shorter who might be trying to make a decision about this company. I will try to be brief. First realize that the judge has already ruled that Zicam cannot be pulled from the shelves. In the end, even if Quigley were to win, Gel TEch would only be liable for the time the patent was valid - it expires in less than 2 years. So, the worst case scenario for GUMM is that they would have to pay Quigley a "reasonable" (legal jargon) royalty for that time period only. The arguments are legalese and the "judgement" as it was written up is really not a judgement at all, but a preliminary hearing that asked for dismissal. One of the hardest things for laymen to understand is the terminology "likely to infringe". Likelihood in this case means only that it "merits discussion" or "has a case" (i,e, should go to trial) rather than "likely to win". In other words, it is not so ludicrous that it should just be dismissed. The basic issues are whether the Eby patent applies and whether GelTech has damaged Quigley. I have explained that if GelTech were to lose, they would not be liable for any more than a royalty and their product could not be pulled. You can go into the deep transcript for that - I have. With regard to damage on Quigley, I think it can be shown that Quigley was headed downhill before Zicam hit the market in late Jan 99. Its downfall was that people sold zinc lozenges as food supplements in order to skirt their patent. GelTech has already boxed one copier and is in the process of taking care of another; with a nasal gel the door is not quite so ajar. In any case the issues revolve around a medical definition of the "oral mucosa" and whether or not the Zicam "saturates the oral mucosa" which is the precise wording in the patent. When it is explained in court how it works (it lines the "nasal mucosa"), the case will be dismissed (my opinion only - I am not a lawyer but have dissected many ENT cancers enough to know the anatomy). The patent holder, Eby, has already publicly stated that the patent does not apply so the fact that Quigley has gotten this far is surprising and won't it be interesting if he is asked to testify against Quigley if subpoenaed? Those are the issues in the patent case and Quigley himself stated in their recent conference call that this case would be wrapped up this year. End of story.