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: billy d who wrote (1984)	3/10/1999 8:20:00 AM
From: BMcV	Respond to of 10280

>>If I understand this whole patent deal correctly, should SEPR develop a new Prozac for LLY, companies like Barr could still make a generic version of the old Prozac.<< billy, that's my understanding too. I think the problem comes from the fact that SEPR's Prozac ICE is already "in" the old Prozac, so it could seem like Lilly, by its licensing agreement with SEPR, has unfairly doubled the patent lifeof its key drug. "Addition by subtraction" is apparently not understood by the critics, namely, SEPR's molecule, to the extent it has a different pharmacological effect, is innovative and deserving of patent protection. The FDA and patent office understand this, which is why they granted the patents in the first place. SEPR first came to my attention when they got the Allegra patent and I think that was the watershed decision, that isomers of patented drugs are patentable. I don't see anything changing that, which is why I can't imagine this flap will do anything other than let some shorts out with a little less pain.

To: billy d who wrote (1984)	3/10/1999 8:23:00 AM
From: BMcV	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10280

link to AP article: messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com

To: billy d who wrote (1984)	3/11/1999 10:48:00 AM
From: Don Miller	Respond to of 10280

Billy, The single isomer compound production are clearly new and inovative therefore deserving of patent rights. FDA likes the consequences as well. The real issue is whether SEPRACOR can join the former racemate patent holder and use their marketing strength to sell the new single isomer. As I understand it, patent law prevents the prior racemate patent holder from getting a patent equivalent to SEPRACOR's. Therein lies the issue, should the former patent holder be permitted to market the improved version, would this marketing stifle competition for a generic producer? 1. There is nothing to prevent generic's from selling their version. Therefore there are no competitive issues. 2. The new generic's will never have the right to use the trade name of the racemate drug, unless they buy that right from the owner. Not even Sepracor can sell under the trade name without getting the rights from owner.