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 : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Torben Noerup Nielsen who wrote (15816)	2/24/1998 10:11:00 PM
From: Henry Niman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

Torben, When I saw GLYC and CYTL in the heading, I thought that LGND was licensing out the GLYC technology. However, I now think that the announcement had more to do with patent enforcement than technology licensing. I think that GLYC had some rather broad patents and CYTL was infringing. To settle, they worked out a milestone/royalty agreement that involved use of the GLYC patents. The agreement is non-exclusive. Thus LGND can go after other infringers and/or they can still licence out the technology to third parties.

To: Torben Noerup Nielsen who wrote (15816)	2/25/1998 11:38:00 AM
From: Peter Singleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32384

re: the Glycomed technology. my quick read of the press release gave me the impression that LGND was simply protecting their intellectual property, and this was not an example of their out-licensing technology. They gave CYTL a non-exclusive right to use GLYC technology in already under development CYTL products ... sounds like GLYC was awarded a patent on some fundamental carbohydrate technology, and approached CYTL with that information ... at least that's my initial interpretation. An out-licensing of the technology would be if and when LGND finds a marketing partner for Galardin which has completed PIII, or for one of the earlier stage compounds. Even if these are viable products, I'd understand that Robinson et al have to allocate their attention to higher payback negotiations, so these may continue to sit independent of their viability. Peter