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 : ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc (ACAD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (352)	10/28/2006 1:24:04 PM
From: tuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 588

Well, if it was just Brann acting out, he sure used a lot of other company scientists to do it. But if one searches patents, the read looks a bit different. Just about simultaneous with publication, there is an application, and Schiffer is the ONLY inventor. No assignee is given. appft1.uspto.gov It appears many other patents and applications in this field cite Schiffer's work. So it would seem that Schiffer is doing this more than Brann was. My questions are . . . Does Acadia get a piece of this? Why are all those Acadia scientists listed as authors of the publication, but Schiffer apparently gets the IP to himself? Could this eventually lead to a deal in which Acadia gets a royalty chunk if this assay is commercialized, but Schiffer gets a big slice because he did most of the work on which that study was founded (i.e Acadia becomes the eventual assignee, while they make a side deal with Schiffer, and then they outlicense it)? Or were the Acadia scientists listed on the publication because they gave him some lab space when they weren't using it, and Schiffer did all the actual work on his own time? If the latter, it's not acknowledged that way in the article. Cheers, Tuck