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 : Summit Technology (BEAM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ajs who wrote (1065)	9/25/1998 7:13:00 AM
From: pappy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1386

Does anyone have any ideas if this will have a positive/negative effect on BEAM (the lawsuit VISX filed against ATCI) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's my spin on the suit!! ratso5 Sep 24 1998 11:38PM EDT Very interesting. Seems VISX is filing suit to protect one of the patents that the FTC included in its allegation against VISX for patent fraud. Todays News: SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 24, 1998--VISX, INCORPORATED (Nasdaq NM Symbol: VISX - news) today announced that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Federal Court in Delaware against Autonomous Technologies Corporation [Nasdaq:ATCI - news] located in Orlando, Florida. The suit is aimed at enforcing VISX's patent rights in the United States relative to the use of ultraviolet lasers to correct vision problems. The patents asserted in the suit are U.S. Patent No. 4,718,418 ''Apparatus for Performing Ophthalmic Laser Surgery'' and U.S. Patent No. 4,665,913 ''Method for Ophthalmological Surgery.'' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now an excerpt from the FTC complaint: (Read closely): 15.One of the interferences referred to in Paragraph 14 was between Dr. Francis A. L'Esperance, Jr., and Dr. Stephen Trokel ("Trokel-L'Esperance Interference"). The Trokel- L'Esperance Interference arose in the following manner: On May 19, 1987, the PTO issued to Dr. L'Esperance U.S. Patent No. 4,665,913 ("?913 patent"), which contained claims covering methods for performing PRK. That patent was held by Taunton. On December 15, 1983, Dr. Trokel filed an application for a patent that contained claims conflicting with claims in the ?913 patent. Dr. Trokel assigned his rights under that application to Old VISX. On the basis of conflicts between the ?913 patent and Dr. Trokel's application, the PTO declared the Trokel- L'Esperance interference on September 30, 1988. VISX resolved the Trokel-L'Esperance Interference by telling the PTO that Dr. Trokel had priority with respect to the claimed invention at issue in that interference. Subsequently, partially in reliance on VISX's determination of priority, a new patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,108,388, covering that claimed invention, was issued to Dr. Trokel. Plaintiffs Request: III. A requirement that Respondent VISX shall refrain from taking any action to enforce, or seek licensing revenue from: U.S. Patents Nos. 5,108,388 (Trokel) and 5,163,934 (Munnerlyn) as well as any patents that are continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, substitutions, reissues or reexaminations of these patents or their original applications; and U.S. Patents Nos. 4,773,414 (L'Esperance) and 4,798,204(L'Esperance). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------