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 : Sepracor-Looks very promising -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vector1 who wrote (1147)	9/13/1998 11:55:00 PM
From: Lawrence Hilzenrath	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10280

Sepracor in NY Times !!!! It wont let me post the link. But in Todays NY times (sunday) there was a very positive article about Sepracor in the Business section. It discusses everything about Sepracor and even hints about the Prozac licensing negotiations. One analyst sees the stock fairly valued at $100. Ny times web sight is www.nytimes.com. Lawrence

To: Vector1 who wrote (1147)	9/14/1998 9:11:00 AM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10280

V1, According to Jim Silverman, a quick look at the latest filings suggests that there has been some selling by the Soros funds, but not by Soros himself. This could well account for the weakness. On the IP side, I think you have to look at the dynamics as well as the legal protection. To the extent the original holder licenses the SEPR improvement as a means to extend their original franchise, they clearly have no interest in attacking the SEPR position. Add to this that a number of big pharmas are using analogous patent extensions (e.g., the improved version of omeprazole by Astra Merck), they also have no inclination to attack ICE patents. I suppose we could see an attack from a Nader-type outfit (or a generics manufacturer) charging that the ICE's are a device to unlawfully extend the life and reach of an existing patent, but I think this is unlikely. To the extent that SEPR tries to go it alone (on say Prozac), then there is a motive for the existing patent holder to try to attack the SEPR patent, just as they do for new generics. This is one good reason to always try to license to the existing franchise holder. Where the existing drug is not well established or a big seller (like the new sleeping pill where the old drug isn't approved in the US), there is more likelihood of them going it alone. My guess is that they will generally attempt to license first, and only if they can't get a good deal will they go it alone (or partner with someone else than the existing holder). I certainly haven't done detailed research on their IP position in each of their drugs, but the deals they've done so far (except the very first, Seldane/Allegra) have reinforced the perception that their IP position is solid. Peter