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 : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (5303)	1/2/2002 8:43:08 PM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

David, Without looking at the details of how each patent was prosecuted it's hard to tell the effect of Festo. You have to look at which claims were amended and how. It's interesting that only one biotech company, Applera, opposed granting cert. In favor were Genentech, Xoma and Guilford. So one can assume that at least Applera will benefit. It's not at all clear though that you need fancy gene-shuffling technology to sidestep most protein patents if the holders are estopped from applying the doctrine of equivalents. For an interesting discussion of the whole case, take a look at: skgf.com They conclude that "out of 52 post-Festo Federal Circuit decisions analyzing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, none have found infringement under this doctrine. If the Supreme Court affirms Festo, it is likely that patentees will continue to have difficulties in proving infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and will likely think hard about asserting a claim of infringement under the doctrine." I predict (and hope) that the Supreme Court will overrule the Court of Appeals here, even though they are likely generally reluctant to overrule the patent specialists on that court. Peter