SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : 2008 Biotech Stock Picking for Charity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkrw who wrote (131)2/14/2008 9:44:55 AM
From: idos  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 322
 
SERP will have to be careful to avoid reverse payment. They might settle with Breath (the one who has 180 days exclusivity) and shave 2 years from the '994 patent, expiring 2013.

In court, the burden of proof is on the FTC to show that the patent(s) would have been successfully challenged if not settled. In the Provigil case, where it has one particle size patent, the patent is indeed weak. Even if the FTC will win, it will probably take a few years, so Provigil will go off patent anyway.



To: rkrw who wrote (131)5/2/2008 9:53:01 AM
From: idos  Respond to of 322
 
So SEPR shaved one year off the expiration of the '994 patent in 2013, but preserves the '289 patent (2021). Good move (in case of litigation against Dey and Barr).


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News