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: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (7580)	12/20/2002 11:32:25 PM
From: NeuroInvestment	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

Miljenko: It's late--two notes and a last question: 1) I have been told that indiplon did not arrive in its current finished form in the group of compounds that were licensed from WA via DOV--that there was some chemical modification that was done by NBIX. I do not know what that was. But if so, that is an alternate hypothesis to 'they were lucky'--they may have derived indiplon in its final from the W-A group, and thus had to pay royalties, but it was not one that could have been specified in the Cyanamid patents. Perhaps I am not remembering this correctly, it comes from conversations last spring, and I have not checked my notes. You may have access to the chemical structures that may clarify this. But that's my understanding--and I do not have the chemistry acumen necessary to be definitive. 2) The GSK longterm preclinicals on the first CRF1 candidate are wrapping up or done--and the go-no go decision about proceeding ahead is going to come 1Q, I suspect on the early side. If there is some smoking gun problem, I havent heard anything, but I wouldnt expect to. There is a backup near-ready as well. 3) The question: If it is in fact so easy to devise an alternate time-release technology that does not infringe, but provides identical bioavailability and pharmacodynamics/kinetics (which could be very pertinent to clinical performance)--why would anyone bother patenting time-release technologies in the first place? I personally question whether it is in fact so simple (and free of infringement) to perfectly mimic a patented time-release formulation, and thus it may provide more protection than has been suggested here. Does this make sense to you given your chemistry expertise? Good night, Harry