Londo,
Thanks for your thoughts. The patent situation does seem a little wierd. Apparently the gene that produces luciferase is not itself patentable. So they patented their method for getting any exogenous material into the zygote (the male pronucleus being the "preferred" method). When it differentiates, they're in business. From the S-1/A:
>>United States Patent [19] [11] Patent Number: 4,873,191
Wagner et al. [45] Date of Patent: Oct. 10, 1989
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[54] GENETIC TRANSFORMATION OF ZYGOTES
[75] Investors: Thomas E. Wagner, Athens, Ohio;
Peter C. Hoppe, Bar Harbor, Me.
[73] Assignee: Ohio University, Athens, Ohio
[21] Appl. No.: 897,666
[22] Filed: Aug 18, 1986
Related U.S. Application Data
[63] Continuation of Ser. No. 607,754, May 4, 1984, abandoned, which is a
continuation of Ser. No. 273,239, Jun. 12, 1981, abandoned.
[51] Int. Cl./4/ ................... C12N 15/00; C12N 1/00;
C12N 5/00
[52] U.S. Cl. ...................... 435/172.3; 435/172.1;
435/317.l; 435/320; 435/240.2; 935/53;
935/70; 800/1
[58] Field of Search ............. 435/172.3, 240.2, 172.1;
800/1
[56] References Cited
PUBLICATIONS
Gordon et al, PNSA USA, vol. 77, pp. 7380-7384, Dec. 1980.
Wigler et al, Cell, vol. 16. pp. 777-785, Apr. 1979.
Jahner et al, Nature, vol. 287, pp. 456-458 (Oct. 1980).
Jacnish et al, PNAS, vol. 71, pp. 1250-1254 (Apr. 1974).
Lacy et al, Cell, vol. 18, pp. 1273-1283 (Dec. 1979).
Lacy et al, Cell, vol. 21, pp. 545-553 (Sep. 1980).
Hardison et al, Cell, vol. 18, pp. 1285-1297 (Dec. 1979).
Wagner et al, PNAS USA, vol. 78, pp. 6376-6380 (Oct. 1981).
Brinster, J. Exp. Med., vol. 140, pp. 1049-1056 (1974).
Mintz et al, PNSA USA, vol. 72, pp. 3585-3589 (1975).
Pafaioannou et al, Nature, vol. 258, pp. 69-73 (1975).
Pellicer et al, PNSA USA, vol. 77, pp. 2098-2102 (1980).
Watanabe et al, PNSA USA, vol. 75, pp. 5113-5117 (1978).
Illimenses et al, PNSA USA, vol. 75, pp. 1914-1981 (1978).
Jacnisch, PNAS USA, vol. 73, pp. 1260-1264 (1976).
Mulligan et al, Nature, vol. 277, pp. 108-114, Jan. 11, 1979.
Goeddel et al, Nature, vol. 281, pp. 544-548, Oct. 18, 1979.
Cline et al, Nature, vol. 284, pp. 422-425, Apr. 3, 1980.
Wigler et al, Cell, vol. 11, pp. 223-232 (1977).
Wigler et al, Cell, vol. 14, pp. 725-731 (1978).
Wigler et al, PNSA USA, vol. 76, pp. 1373-1376 (1979).
Capecchi et al, Cell, vol. 22, pp. 479-488 (1980).
Gordon, J. Exptl. Zoology, 228: 313-324 (1983).
Brinster, Cell, 27: 233-31 (Nov. 1981).
Harbers et al, Cell., 27: 233-231 (Nov. 1981).
Constantini and Lacy, Nature, 294: 92-14 (Nov. 1981).
Primary Examiner--Alvin E. Tanenholtz
Attorney, Agent or Firm--Iver P. Cooper; Donald G. Leavitt
[57] ABSTRACT
Genetic transformation of a zygote and the embryo and mature organism which
result therefrom is obtained by placing or inserting exogenous genetic material
into the nucleus of the zygote or into any genetic material which ultimately
forms at least a part of the nucleus of the zygote. It is preferred that the
exogenous genetic material be added to a pronuclei of the zygote and is
particularly preferred that it be added to the male pronecleus of the
zygote. Thereafter, the zygote is allowed to undergo differentiation and
development into the organism. The genotype of the zygote and the organism which
results therefrom will include the genotype of the exogenous genetic material
and the exogenous genetic material will be phenotypically expressed.
The invention can be utilized in a variety of ways including, for example,
animal and plant breeding to modify or create new species, it can be used in
epigenetics and in the understanding and treatment of genetic diseases.
7 Claims, No Drawings<<
I imagine an ABGX, MEDX, LEXG, etc., might be able to find another tagging method that would work, but I don't know how well. Hence my request for help in this area from folks more biofreakish than myself. And then competitors would have to develop the other software and hardware, which would take a while. Looks to me like XGEN has a substantial lead here, as I'm unaware of any other in vivo imaging method like this (aside from PET, MRI, etc., which are much more limited in their applications).
They started marketing about a year ago, and they only have five reps. I think a good chunk of the IPO money would be for marketing. Thus strategically, with their development lead established in the relative secrecy afforded by being a private company, they can now afford to make their technique more public and start talking to lot more folks.
That said, I also find the co-CEOship a bit dubious. As founder, I suppose, Dr. Contag felt she deserved a better salary than that of Chief Scientific Officer. Mr. Carter has been in since the beginning, too, though, and it seems to have worked so far.
As usual, the royalties are confidential, so we can only guess about breakeven for now. In a few quarters we might be able to tease an estimate of the average % from the revenue stream and what we know of the timing of the deals, etc.
I concur that it would be most prudent to wait for lock-up expiration and see where they are. So my strategy would be to nibble some now, and more then.
Cheers, Tuck |
