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 : Misonix Inc. (MSON) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Beltropolis Boy who wrote (810)	9/15/1998 8:59:00 PM
From: Wesley0428	Respond to of 947

And Mentor takes a different view. Oh well, sounds like Washington. <<<Mentor Announces Court Sets Trial Date For Patent Infringement Suit SANTA BARBARA, Calif., Sept. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Mentor Corporation (Nasdaq: MNTR) today announced that at a hearing conducted last Friday, September 11, 1998, Judge Keller of the U.S. District Court of California found that Mentor had demonstrated a "likelihood of success on the merits" of its patent infringement suit against defendants Misonix, Inc., Lysonix, Inc. and Medical Device Alliance, Inc. In its suit Mentor claims that defendants' marketing and sale of their Lysonix 2000 ultrasonic-assisted liposuction device constitutes willful patent infringement. While the Court declined Mentor's request for an immediate injunction, the Court set an early trial of the matter for January 1999. In addition, the Court rejected certain of the defendants' arguments concerning their interpretations of the patent. Mentor Corporation produces medical and surgical devices for the specialties of ophthalmic surgery, urology and plastic surgery. This release may contain forward-looking statements that are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. SOURCE Mentor Corporation CO: Mentor Corporation; Misonix, Inc.; Lysonix, Inc.; Medical Device Alliance, Inc. ST: California>>>

To: Beltropolis Boy who wrote (810)	9/16/1998 5:39:00 PM
From: Candle stick	Respond to of 947

MORE INFO ON THE HEARING: From a post on the Yahoo! boards: post.messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com <- Previous Next -> Message 439 of 440 Reply Eyewitness Account of Hearing ghost5995 Sep 16 1998 5:17PM EDT I was at the hearing so I will try to explain what happened. First of all, Judge Keller did not have "the chance to throw the whole thing out" as you suggest since there was no such motion before him and a judge cannot just do that on his own. The issues at the hearing were Mentor's motion for a preliminary injunction and the parties conflicting views of the meaning of Mentor's patent claim (claim construction). Mentor is incorrect in asserting that the Judge found "substantial likelihood of success on the merits." If he had, he almost certainly would have issued the injunction, which he denied on the spot. Rather, while expressing considerable skepticism about the validity of Mentor's patent (including repeatedly asking how it could have gotten threw the patent office given the prior art), the Judge indicated that he did not have the technical expertise to determine the issue of infringement. He ordered the appointment of an impartial expert to aid the Court in understanding the technical aspects of the case. If you believe (as I do), that the Lysonix device does not infringe Mentor's patent, this is a very good thing, since it greatly increases the chance of the Court "getting it right." The Judge set an early trial because he is tired of this case taking up his time, rather than to favor either party. He made it clear that he would like the parties to settle, although that does not seem very likely right now. On claim construction, there were three issues under consideration. Mentor won one and Misonix/Lysonix won the other two, so strictly speaking both press releases are correct on this point. However, I believe the points won by Misonix were by far the most important. FWIW, I own a boatload of MSON and bought more after the hearing. Assuming the rest of the business holds up, this company is ridiculously undervalued! MSON: Quote \| Profile \| Research \| Insider This Is a Reply to: Msg 436 by newsguy <- Previous Next -> Message 439 of 440 Reply

To: Beltropolis Boy who wrote (810)	9/16/1998 10:07:00 PM
From: Candle stick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 947

More details on the 3 issues at the MSON/Mentor hearing, from a well informed person on the Yahoo! message boards: messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com The first issue was what frequency range the patent covered. Mentor said it covered all ultrasonic frequencies, while Lysonix said it covered only frequencies above at least 30KHz (Lysonix 2000 operates at 22.5KHz). Mentor won this point. The second argument was how much fat needed to be "melted" by localized frictional heat to fall under the patent. The claim used the word "some", and Mentor argued this meant "any". Lysonix claimed that would include the prior art, and said a "non-incidental" amount of melting was required. Lysonix won this point, which is critical because Mentor will now have to show the Lysonix 2000 works by melting, rather than cavitation. It will not constitute infringement if the device works by cavitation but there is some incidental melting from frictional heat. The third argument concerned the meaning of "irrigating the probe." Mentor argued that bringing fluid into contact with the probe at any time constituted irrigation. Lysonix argued that the patent covered an irrigation flow after the probe was activated. The court basically accepted the Lysonix position, defining it as "irrigating the area surrounding the probe at any time subsequent to the subcutaneous initiation of the ultrasonic vibration." This was important because rather than using an irrigation sleeve, surgeons using the Lysonix 2000 inject fluid into the operating site before activating the probe. Now that I've shared all this information, does anyone have any insight into how the US Surgical device is doing in the marketplace? I would love to know if this looks like a long term winner or not.