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: John O'Neill who wrote (21377)	5/25/1998 12:34:00 PM
From: WTDEC	Respond to of 32384

JO, there is a difference between interference, which the PTO asserted in the LGND/Roche situation and infringement. Infringement occurs when someone uses a patented idea belonging to another. Use could trigger an infringement suit, but in the L/R case, it is already known that there is an interference. Roche may chose to negotiate some deal with LGND rather than sue, especially since LGND filed first and therefore has strong reason, in good faith (unless there are negative facts we don't know about), to proceed to use the patent granted to LGND. If Roche did sue and win, any damages for which LGND would be liable would probably be minor, since LGND has a patent right which it is entitled to use. I agree that this matter can be expensive for LGND if it goes to court. In all patent infringement cases, if one of the parties wants a jury trial, that is way it must proceed under our legal (right to a trial by peers) system. Agree that is absurd as most of the cases are too technical for even the vast majority of judges to understand. For the layman it is hopeless. I hope LGND will be forthcoming on the status of the interference. Regards, Walter