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: ewolf who wrote (14613)	12/9/2004 9:17:39 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 52153

Well it makes a little more sense if you figure the risk/reward calculus. To the extent KOSP has switched patients already, then a generic doesn't buy Barr nearly as much - perhaps half if KOSP has switched half the patients, maybe only quarter if KOSP in addition does an authorized generic which they would be more likely to do if they have an alternative formulation on the market. From KOSP's perspective, trying to introduce a new formulation once a generic is already on the market is nearly impossible. Note that KOSP does have multiple patents, both use and formulation. I think the key one relates to the notion of intermediate release speed to prevent liver damage. But I have no idea if there was prior art. But overall I just don't see Barr launching at risk - the threat of triple damages must surely outweigh the advantages of an early launch unless they are really confident of the strength of their case. Peter

To: ewolf who wrote (14613)	12/9/2004 11:04:11 PM
From: rkrw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

<<<if Kos can get their improved version to market by 2006>>> Can you really say the new version is improved? "Once at night" or "once at night low flush," does it make a material difference? Any users able to comment? Have they said how much lower, as in slight blushing versus Rudolph? :-)