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 : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry Liebman who wrote (5298)	7/9/1998 3:48:00 PM
From: Rocketman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

If they really can get AND UPHOLD a patent for "small molecule drugs", they may have a licensing gold mine there. Reminds one of the Boyer & Cohen recombinant DNA patents at Stanford. Nothing like a business where you collect checks and sic your attorney on violators so you can collect even more checks. The trick is making the price low enough that it is easier to license than fight. Now, I am a chemist by training with a BA in it before I got my MS in Zoology, and have been in the American Chemical Society for over a decade, so I'm fairly familiar with the field. Well, I have a problem with the whole word or concept in the press release of "small molecule drug". What the hell does that mean? Where do you draw the lines? Why not claim big molecules and medium molecules too? There has got to be more specificity to this patent....this sounds WAY too broad as described in this press release. What something this broad can do, is bring out prior art claims that say hey, we were trying to do this too before you, but no one called it small molecule then, or maybe even "the regulation of gene transcription". My guess is that small molecule regulation of gene transcription has been going on by drugs for much of the history of mankind by ingestion of various compounds. It is just that there is a lack of pharmacologic evidence to show that this is what has been happening. The issue I see is that no one really knew to call it that because the pharmacology is mostly a mystery. Well, now there is incentive to go back and find small molecule drugs that work their effect by somehow regulating gene transcription and voila, you pop this patent. My guess is that this patent is narrower than it sounds in the press release. At least in my simplistic viewpoint. Oh, and a general view I have of patents is that they are pretty much meaningless until they have been challenged and upheld. Rman

To: Larry Liebman who wrote (5298)	7/9/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: Henry Niman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9719

I haven't seen the OSI patent, but the press release mentions advances made in the late 80's. A few relevant points include: The first non-polypeptide hormone receptor (glucocorticoid) was sequenced (by Ron Evans at Salk) in 1985. Shortly thereafter, several additional receptors were sequenced which quickly defined hormone binding and DNA binding domains. Small molecules (tretinoin - active ingredient in Retin-A and isotretinoin - active ingredient in Accutane) that interacted with the hormone binding domain had been studied since the 70's. When Ligand exclusively licensed Ron Evan's intracellular technology from Salk in 1988, the co-transfection assay was well established. Its function was to screen small molecules that affected transcription factors which controlled gene expression.