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 : GLGC Gene Logic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (57)	6/5/1999 1:08:00 AM
From: Mike McFarland	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 360

Implications for Hyseq? quote.yahoo.com HYSQ does not normally do that kind of volume...and did move down a bit today, interesting.

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (57)	4/7/2000 9:20:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360

I realize that Push is no longer with the company, that he left without addressing the simple questions that were presented. I also realize that (1) the relevance of this finding is not all that relevant to the current business plan. However, following up...... Friday April 7, 8:53 am Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: Oxford Gene Technology Affymetrix Loses Patent Dispute to Oxford Gene Technology Court Decides Affymetrix is Not Licensed Under Southern Microarray Patents OXFORD, England, April 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The English High Court today gave judgement in favour of Oxford Gene Technology Limited (``OGT') on the question of whether Affymetrix, Inc. (Nasdaq: AFFX - news) is licensed under various OGT intellectual property, including OGT's DNA microarray patents in Europe and the United States, numbers EP 373 203 and US 5,700,637. The Court held that Affymetrix is not licensed. Specifically, the Court held that Affymetrix's attempts to obtain a licence under these patents through a complex series of agreements with Beckman Coulter, Inc. dating back to July 1998 were ineffective. Affymetrix had claimed that it had purchased Beckman Coulter's microarray business and with it a licence under OGT's patents granted to Beckman in 1991. The Court said that Beckman Coulter's microarray research programme did not amount to a business and so was not capable of transferring Beckman's existing licence to Affymetrix. The English Court's judgement is effective not just in the UK and Europe, but also in the United States where OGT is taking parallel infringement proceedings against Affymetrix in the Federal Court in Delaware under its US patent number 5,700,637. The trial of this action is due to be heard in October 2000. The English Court's judgement resolves in OGT's favour the question of whether Affymetrix has a licence to the '637 patent and thus effectively decides Affymetrix's main defence to infringement, namely that it is licensed, in OGT's favour as well. OGT is vigorously pursuing the US infringement action. Professor Edwin Southern, Chairman and majority owner of OGT, said: ``OGT holds fundamental patents for DNA microarrays and methods of using them, and has a further allowed patent in the United States which is due to issue shortly covering arrays made both by in-situ synthesis and deposition. Microarray technology is proving to be a major advance in genetic analysis and I am keen to see the technology realises its full potential. We have already licensed our patents or granted options to a number of companies and are in negotiations with several others.' He added, ``Affymetrix was offered a licence on reasonable terms but tried to improve its position by entering into a complex series of arrangements with one of our licensees. We challenged their actions in the Courts and I am pleased that our position has been upheld. We cannot allow infringements of our patents to go unchallenged: this would not be fair on others who have willingly entered into licence agreements with us.' OGT has other actions pending against Affymetrix, aimed at releasing what OGT sees as Affymetrix's stranglehold on the development of microarray technology through its restrictive licensing policies. Professor Southern stated: ``I respect the work that Affymetrix's scientists have done, but through their patents they are claiming rights over things they did not invent or are not patentable.' The other actions include: -- proceedings in the English High Court to revoke Affymetrix's UK patents numbers, GB 2,248,840 and EP(UK) 0619 321, due to be heard in March 2001; and -- opposition proceedings against Affymetrix's European patent No. EP 0 619 321. The main basis of these actions is that Affymetrix's patents are unduly broad, covering areas of microarray technology that they cannot validly claim to have invented. SOURCE: Oxford Gene Technology