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 : Imclone systems (IMCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (1877)	1/24/2002 2:10:27 AM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2515

<<"What is the chances that if IMCL goes back and does the required protocol for testing that they might loss the patent on the drug.">> How can future trails protocol change validity of the issued patent? Patent can only be re-examined if claims are supported with false (or fabricated) results. Regards the fraud, did you ask BTRN management why they were selling share at open market while proposing secondary (which may be at deep discount). Whose interest they were protecting, and working for? Miljenko

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (1877)	1/24/2002 9:23:15 AM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2515

Have seen this claim and don't know the reason why it has been mentioned. When looking for the patents issued to IMCL it appears that of the 38 shown at the patent site only about 14 show IMCL as the assignee. Labrat.com has, apparently, sorted them out. Could the concept of losing patents mean that some key ones might expire before a product could be launched? I am asking, am in no way implying that is the case. I do not know either what the key patents are nor the date of issuance.