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 : Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (96)	4/11/1998 10:22:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 4974

Steve: There was a second trial. The jury was not allowed, however, to rule on guilt. I don't think that we're on opposite sides of the fence. I really wish that the companies could have worked something out. However, I do feel that CPRO is infringing the B-D/Johns Hopkins patents. And, certainly, you're correct; there is a chance that CPRO will prevail. You are required to reduce an invention to practice to get the patent. You are not required to commercialize anything in order for it to remain in force. I believe that CPRO had the license offered to them. When I went to industry, I started out with a Baxter competitor. I watched them then, and I've watched them since. I even had some up close and personal when I was collaborating with the old BioTherapeutics. They (Baxter Immunotherapy) always seem to try to re-engineer something to suit a new purpose, rather than take the straight route as CPRO did. So..... I don't know if their impotence is due to a lack of diligence or just the obvious. That is, sitting on their butts or working their butts off, it's hard to tell the difference with Baxter. I've never looked at the CPRO arguments. I only know that, when I looked at the CD34 patent while I was at a reagents company, I came to the opinion that we should license the work. Since I have not looked at the CPRO argument, one should take my commentary with the old grain of salt. Peter..... here's an excerpt from the last SyStemix 10-Q, issued before (11/8/96) Sandoz (Novartis) purchased them. I would need to know the current status of these competitive efforts and others, as well as review the other VMRX projects, before I could say that VMRX is a serious consideration. That said, I bought a few shares on Thursday. I do this on occasion..... buy a little bit so that I am forced to learn more. The excerpt.......... Many existing cancer therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, compromise the body's immune system and its ability to create new cells. By reinfusing HSCs after these therapies, the Company believes that patients will achieve timely recovery as well as sustained hematopoietic function over the long term. The Company believes that in addition to the importance of its patented cell population, a key competitive advantage for the Company is its proprietary high speed cell sorting system that separates viable and functional HSCs at higher speeds and levels of purity than cell doses obtained with a number of other cell separation methods. By using this system to achieve a highly pure dose of HSCs, the Company is able to effectively eliminate certain types of tumor cells, providing a cell population that is disease-free to the levels detectable by the most sensitive methods currently available. ******************* and here's a description of the VMRX deal from the Baxter perspective (from the latest 10-K)...... VIMRX Pharmaceuticals Inc. In December 1997, the company and VIMRX Pharmaceuticals Inc. (VIMRX) formed a new cell-therapy company to develop innovative treatments for cancer and other life-threatening diseases. The company transferred certain assets of its Immunotherapy division into the new company and holds a minority ownership position along with warrants to acquire an additional ownership interest in the future. VIMRX obtained a majority interest in the new company in exchange for 11 million shares of VIMRX common stock and convertible preferred shares with a nominal value of approximately $66 million. The securities received by Baxter are reflected on the company's balance sheet in other noncurrent assets. Baxter is restricted from selling the common stock or converting the convertible preferred stock for a period of time pursuant to government regulations and contractual agreement, respectively. The company recognized a pretax gain from the transaction of $32 million. The company and VIMRX loaned $30 million and $10 million, respectively, to the new company to provide initial operating funds. *********** I hope nobody is laboring under the impression that I have looked thoroughly at either VMRX or CPRO. I haven't. Rick

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (96)	4/11/1998 11:33:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4974

Steve: Sounds like you can help us start to analyze VMRX. Do you know the CPRO sales that were projected for the U.S.? To all...... here's a discussion of the PMA that Steve was referring to...... biz.yahoo.com Please remember.... I do not respect, at all, the fashion in which this company was built. It was funded on the back of hypericin. Cheers! Rick

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (96)	10/4/1998 1:53:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Respond to of 4974

Just to close on an issue that we were discussing last April. Sad events. The efforts at CPRO were led by scientists that, above all else, wanted to put new therapies in place. However, a good biotech investor has to question the decisions of management when they seem to bump up against the obvious. In 1993, most of us in this field were looking at the BD/Hopkins patent. As we've discussed here, I came to the conclusion that CPRO was committing suicide. For our purposes, it's necessary to acknowledge that Rosenthal/Aries/Paramount has one in the win column, and to assess what it means for VMRX going forward........ Monday September 28, 5:49 pm Eastern Time CellPro plans bankruptcy, cuts jobs SEATTLE, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Biotech company CellPro Inc on Monday announced its chief executive has resigned, it plans to file for bankruptcy, the loss of 93 jobs, the sale of assets and the settlement of a patent suit. The company said in a statement it plans to sell essentially all of its intangible assets and intellectual property to VIMRx Pharmaceuticals Inc (Nasdaq:VMRX - news) unit Nexell Therapeutics in exchange for $3 million in VIMRx registered securities. CellPro also said it has settled all issues remaining in its patent litigation with Baxter Healthcare Corp (NYSE:BAX - news), John Hopkins University and Becton Dickinson & Co and will pay about $15.6 million. In August a U.S. appeals court ruled CellPro infringed patents when it developed its Ceprate bone marrow transplant system. CellPro also agreed to appoint Baxter as its exclusive worldwide distributor of a limited number of disposable kits for its Ceprate system. CellPro said it will discontinue all operations other than the manufacturing and service functions necessary to support a limited quantity of Ceprate kits, intended to ensure the medical community has continued access to stem cell selection technology. CellPro said its plans were contingent on court approval of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization which it plans to file soon. As part of the plan it will discontinue its European operations and will cut 93 jobs worldwide including the resignation of President and Chief Executive Officer Rick Murdock. Additional information was not immediately available.