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 : VVUS: VIVUS INC. (NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cacaito who wrote (5569)	2/21/1998 10:34:00 AM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Respond to of 23519

Cacaito, I will add your HVSF patent info in my forthcoming " Vivus recent news issue ". TA

To: Cacaito who wrote (5569)	2/22/1998 2:53:00 PM
From: Afaq Sarwar	Respond to of 23519

Cacaito, Unless you knowingly want to spread misinformation, you should do some research before making statements like: "This will not hold in any court,...." For a starter, go to IBM patent search site (http://www.patents.ibm.com/advquery.html) and enter words like "urethra", "intraurethral", "catheter", and etc. What you will find that there are tons of patents out there that involve catheters and male urethra. After a review of these patents you will come to realize some thing that may disappoint you extremely. One does not automatically infringe upon a VVUS patents when a catheter is inserted in a male urethra. Sorry, but that is correct. To further enhance your understanding of patents, you should visit the website of US Patent Office. For example you should read and understand the following three paragraphs: -------------------------------------------------------- In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: "(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent," or "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . ." If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it has been in public use or on sale in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one material for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable. -------------------------------------------------------- Next, if you go to the US Patent Office website (http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?INDEX+PATBIB-ALL+0+24663+0+6+17092+OF+1+1+1+5718917) and review the patent issued to HVSF, you will notice that all the existing and known VVUS patent were identified in the application by HVSF. The Patent Examiner issued the patent to HVSF after reviewing all the relevant patents including those held by VVUS. Based on the contents of your post, it seems quite obvious that at best you are not more qualified and competent in the matters of patent than the Patent Examiner who issued the patent to HVSF, More later. Afaq Sarwar

To: Cacaito who wrote (5569)	2/22/1998 3:27:00 PM
From: Afaq Sarwar	Respond to of 23519

Cacaito, Lets get to the core issue regarding the patent. VVUS had made a claim in their letter to HVSF suggesting that HVSF products infringes upon the patent by Gene Voss that VVUS has rights for. The primary agent for Gene Voss's patent is: "a primary agent, being a vasodilator, selected from the group consisting of papaverine, hydralazine, sodium nitroprusside, phenoxybenzamine or phentolamine, said primary agent being present in said ointment in an amount between one and five percent by weight; dimethyl sulfoxide for assisting absorption of said primary agent through said skin; and a base." The primary agent for HVSF's patent is: ".......an aqueous solution containing prostaglandin-containing liposomes and a detergent for lysing the liposomes. A pharmaceutical composition for treating erectile dysfunction comprises a two-component system. The first component comprises a predetermined amount of lyophilized prostaglandin-containing liposomes. The second component comprises a predetermined volume of an aqueous solution containing a detergent, preferably PEG(9) octylphenyl ether, for lysing the liposomes. Dissolution of the lyophilized prostaglandin-containing liposomes yields a liquid composition...." Do you see the difference that the Patent Examiner was able to see? More later. Afaq Sarwar

To: Cacaito who wrote (5569)	2/22/1998 5:36:00 PM
From: Afaq Sarwar	Respond to of 23519

Scott Nathan is the inventor for the patent no. 5708031 that was issued on Jan. 13, 1998. (http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5708031) In the application for this patent, Gene Voss's patent was referenced. If you notice the drug and the delivery system and their similarity to the patent by Gene Voss. However, the examiner noted enough material differences between the two to allow the claims for the patent by 5708031. -------------------------------------------------------- I claim: 1. A method of treating erectile dysfunction in a male patient, comprising the step of administering to the urethra of the patient a unit dose of a formulation comprising an erectile dysfunction treating amount of a compound having the structural formula: [Figure] or pharmaceutically acceptable salt or ester thereof, together with a pharmaceutically acceptable delivery medium. 2. A method as in claim 1, wherein said administration step further comprises occluding the urethra distally of the formulation to prevent the escape thereof. 3. A method as in claim 1, wherein said formulation further comprises an anesthetic agent. 4. A method as in claim 3, wherein said anesthetic agent comprises lidocaine. 5. A method as in claim 1, wherein said formulation further comprises a lubricating agent. 6. A method as in claim 1, wherein said formulation is in the form of a cream or gel. 7. A method as in claim 1, wherein said formulation is in the form of a suppository. 8. An elongated drug delivery vehicle dimensioned for transurethral insertion, said delivery vehicle containing about 2 cc of a composition comprising an erectile dysfunction treating amount of prostaglandin E2 or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and a delivery medium for the transurethral delivery of said formulation, the amount of prostaglandin E2 being less than about 5.0 mg. -------------------------------------------------------- Also note the use of the word "transurethral insertion" in claim no. 8. This should make it clear, what is otherwise clear anyway, that the act of inserting some thing like a catheter to deliver or retrieve some thing from urethra is not patentable. What is patentable are certain unique features and characteristics of a particular catheter. Also, in these patents the delivery systems are tied to what specifically is being delivered. Therefore the two together make a valid patent. The delivery system alone has no patentable value and the same is true for what is being delivered. I hope this will future help you understand that VVUS does have an inalienable rights to all male urethras of the world, what is inserted in them, and how it is inserted. More later. Afaq Sarwar

To: Cacaito who wrote (5569)	2/22/1998 6:43:00 PM
From: Afaq Sarwar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23519

Cacaito, The patent to Gene Voss was issued in 1989. Patent No. 4776848 was issued to Anthony Solazzo in 1987 for "Urethral fluid application device and system". (http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4776848) The following is the abstract for this patent: -------------------------------------------------------- The present invention involves a urethral fluid application device and system for insertion of fluids with backflow prevention. The device includes a tubular member having a feed port at one end and an outlet port at the opposite end, a unidirectional channel connecting the two ports and a one-way valve permitting flow only from the feed port to the outlet port. The device also includes a flange about the tubular member for contact with and attachment to the glans penis, as well as attachment means located on the flange. The system includes both the device and a supply container with a nozzle adapted to interconnect with the feed port of the device. -------------------------------------------------------- Gene Voss's patent which is the basis for VVUS's claims against HVSF was issued subsequent to the Solazzo's patent. If we go by your argument, the patent by Gene Voss would clearly be seen as infringing on the patent by Solazzo. In that case, Voss's patent would be seen as infringing upon Solazzo's patent. So, now who is infringing upon who's patent. May be all this is not as simple as you may have initially thought. Well so much for your statement "So if it is delivered intrameatally, it is the same as delivered intraurethrally and cover by Vivus patent." Bottom Line: HVSFD has a patent for a unique drug system "aqueous solution containing prostaglandin-containing liposomes and a detergent for lysing the liposomes", that treats erectile dysfunction when delivered to penis preferably intra-meatally. The significance of the drug system is two fold: One, It is delivered in liquid form which is better than a solid suppository as being less painful (by design urethra was intended for fluids not solids!). Two, it can be stored at room temperature during manufacturing, distribution, storage, and delivery. This would impact the cost as well as the availability in less developed areas of the world. The significance of "intra-meatal" delivery is in the fact that it is actually delivered to the meatus and therefore is less invasive, less painful, and consequently more user friendly. The patent would have indicated "intraurethral" if it was required to go deep into the urethra like the solid suppository pallet (sounds painful!) in the case of MUSE. I hope that all these posts have helped. Afaq Sarwar