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 : Zonagen (zona) - good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Braddock Bull who wrote (2547)	2/26/1998 11:07:00 AM
From: Dauntless	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7041

Braddock Bull - food for thought You're absolutely correct about the slanted nature of the Asensio report - ALL of his reports have been "manipulated" to cast doubts upon Zonagen's ethics, etc. As to the patent application & the lawsuit. As it's an ongoing legal proceeding, I'd rather not talk about it directly. In my experience, as far as general rule in patent strategy, it is felt by many that an initial patent application should be as "far reaching" as possible. In fact, a patent application that gets all of its claims granted on the first round is generally thought to be a "poor" application - i.e., it didn't include broad enough claims. Typically, among all the claims filed for, there will be some that are rejected as prior art, etc. - this implies that you have "slightly exceeded" the claims that you're entitled to. The patent examiner will whittle it down for you - in fact, you'll probably spend lots of money educating him to grant what is rightfully yours. All IMHO.

To: Braddock Bull who wrote (2547)	2/26/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7041

BB, another $.02 I thought I'd throw in. It's quite possible that Immumax is alot like Vasomax, in that the patent positions they tried(and will probably try to in the future) are tenuous. In the case of the patent for Vasomax that they are trying to file now, their are only minor novelties in there discovery. Phentolamine was known, rapid gut absorption could be inferred, and oral phentolamine as a therapy for ED was known. One could certainly argue that they have done nothing new. Immumax appears to have been a very similar deal. Remember the Immumax charges are claims in an ancillary lawsuit, and are likely to be highly succeptible to individual interpretation.