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 : Munch-a-Biotech Today -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (122)	1/30/1999 2:38:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3158

Mike is beating the bushes, trying to get answers on vectors/gene therapy. It's an area that I prefer to avoid, but I'd love an early pointer to the winners. Yes, ISIP for antisense, but too risky for me right now. ABGX and MEDX..... continues to look more positive, I agree (that reminds me, I still gotta answer that question in another thread). Screening..... OSIP, ABSC, SIBI.... although the fashion in which Comer is using the SIBI patents is right out of 1985 rationale, and it's really ticking me off. Proprietary databases...... INCY, GENE and others. Enhanced protein yields from tissue culture...... IDPH, CEGE, XOMA, TKTX. Given molecules...... obviously, I like SNAP or I wouldn't have focused on them...... RGEN for CTLA4 play? There are obviously many companies to place in this category, from the SNAPs (proprietary rights to the screening molecules that can yield many different drugs) to the companies that have key composition of matter rights (e.g., TTP). I guess we should not focus on the latter sort of company, unless we have a category for "huge market, drug going gangbusters in clinicals" honorable mention. Quiet "go" signals........ companies that have licensed the Genetics Institute database. We need volunteers to start and maintain certain lists, starting with "companies that have undervalued patents". The conceptual framework for this first list?....... if a big pharma had the patent and would back it with sufficient litigatory (is that a word?) clout, what would the patent be worth? We need to think in terms of big pharmas and big biotechs becoming a cross between old-time pharma entities and a Stanford, licensing the Cohen-Boyer patent.

To: Biomaven who wrote (122)	3/30/1999 9:43:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3158

regarding our earlier discussion of intellectual property...... it is not apparent from this release, but companies may be licensing this patent when they realize that they need it, not for research, but to begin development of something already discovered using the technology....... Tuesday March 30, 8:02 am Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. Announces License of Patented Transcription Based Assay Technology to Bristol-Myers Squibb LA JOLLA, Calif., March 30 /PRNewswire/ -- SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: SIBI - news) today announced that it has entered into a non-exclusive license agreement for its patented transcription based assay (TBA) technology with Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). BMS will use SIBIA's TBA technology for identifying compounds which interact with cell surface proteins for drug discovery. SIBIA will receive annual maintenance payments for use of the technology and royalty payments if compounds discovered as a result of this technology are commercialized. ''We are pleased that BMS has licensed our TBA patent,'' said Stephen F. Keane, SIBIA's Vice President of Corporate Development. ''This technology is a broadly enabling tool that can create value for every pharmaceutical and biotechnology company involved in drug discovery.''