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 : SIBIA Neurosciences (SIBI)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (437)6/28/1999 3:18:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist  Read Replies (1) of 579
I have not read the SIBI or OSIP patents carefully at all, and whatever they cover, seems pretty clear SIBI was way earlier. Yet, it seems in my "cursory reading" that SIBI's claims keep mentioning assays that involve chemicals (small molecules) interacting with EXTRAcellular proteins, while OSIP's claims tend to mention INTRAcellular. Could it be that PFE (besides being unethical slime balls, etc, etc -g-) thinks or would like to think that (1) OSIP patents stand on their own, and (2) that, given what they are doing, PFE sees no need to get licenses to further screening IP?

Sorry if this intra/extra cellular stuff had been mentioned before, or if it is just irrelevant, not surprising given my very cursory reading. Also note that the distinction may be quite artificial. Witness the G-CSF mimetic reported by Ligand and SBH a while back. The screen (probably covered by SIBI and/or OSIP patents, BTW) would pick up molecules working both, outside and inside, the cells. Ironically, most of LGND PR tended to focus on their expertise of all this JAK/STAT stuff - all INTRAcellular - via Jim Darnell, but the compound mentioned above seems to work OUTSIDE the cell.

Just curious,

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext