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 / MedicalSIBIA Neurosciences (SIBI)

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: margie who wrote (418)6/25/1999 11:25:00 PM
From: LLCF
   of 579
<Having a jury trial decide patent issues is like having a jury decide which clinical endpoints >

Or rendering a decision on DNA contamination and whatnot... what ever happened in the O.J. case anyway? :)


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (427)6/25/1999 11:42:00 PM
From: LLCF
   of 579
<Why would AHP license the SIBI patent, having licensed the OSIP work, unless the SIBI patent was enabling?>

And remember, PFE is also using both technologies, just not paying for SIBI's.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (428)6/26/1999 1:12:00 AM
From: margie
   of 579
[ parking, ignore ]
That means don't ignore, to me :- )

Thanks for all the posts. I get the point. I didn't realize that it is standard practice for licensees to pay royalties if a drug is developed using a licensed technology, until the patent expires.

<The Company (Sibi) has granted Pfizer an exclusive, worldwide license to make, use, and sell the therapeutic products resulting from this collaboration in exchange for royalty payments. This license terminates on the date of the last to expire of
the Company's relevant patent rights. >

<Aurora could also receive milestone or profit-share payments related to development or commercialization of compounds identified through use of assays developed in the collaborative research program.>

The biotech companies with these patents do all the leg work; provide the technology and the first steps towards drug discovery, and are being rewarded, albeit on a small scale.
That is what keeps these biotechs going.

< ''Our goal is to provide the next generation of discovery services and technologies throughout the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. We are delighted that Pfizer, one of the world's leading research based companies, has chosen to acquire Aurora's pharmaceutical discovery technology for use on a world-wide basis across therapeutic areas,'' said Timothy J.Rink, M.D., Sc.D., Aurora's chairman and chief executive officer>

So why is Pfizer picking on SIBI? Pfizer has existing collaborations with SIBI, Aurora, Osi, and others.
And why are they asking for a declaratory judgment. By filing first, Pfizer gets to chose the forum for the legal proceedings. They think a jury will be sympathetic .....

If I understand Luke's post, to be awarded a declaratory judgment and to invalidate SIBI's patents invalid, Pfe has to prove that SIBI's conduct made them fearful that SIBI would sue them, if they kept ignoring SIBI's patent. Duh.
<that Siibi's conduct created "an objectively reasonable apprehension on the part of (Pfizer) that (Sibi) will initiate suit if the activity continues....i.e. if Pfizer continues to use the patent without paying.
What a joke. Poor Pfizer is scared of SIBI.

Maybe Pfizer will hire Barry Sheck, the defense attorney for OJ
and Louise Woodward.

<It seems, to me, that 0.5% allows for a Board Room discussion about the merits of "expedience accorded a license, versus wisdom of trying to circumvent">
0.5% is peanuts to these big pharma and does seem to be an abuse of their gorilla powers.

Message 10280756
Effective April 1, 1996, the Company (SIBI) and Pfizer renewed their
collaboration for a new five-year term by entering into new collaborative research and license agreements.
...The Company's screening program has resulted in the identification of a proprietary lead compound, CP-358,774, that inhibits the activity of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor, a protein associated with a number of major cancers. Pfizer is conducting Phase I safety and toxicity studies in the United
States on this compound. The continued development of this compound depends on several factors outside the control of the Company, including the amount and timing of resources devoted by Pfizer, successful completion of safety and toxicity studies and successful optimization of the compound. There can be no assurance that a drug will result from this program.

<The Company (Sibi) has granted Pfizer an exclusive, worldwide license to make, use, and sell the therapeutic products resulting from this collaboration in exchange for royalty payments. This license terminates on the date of the last to expire of
the Company's relevant patent rights. >
That does sound like a very interesting and timely meeting.
Are you going? Kurt Von Dumpster will be there.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Mike McFarland who wrote (415)6/26/1999 10:56:00 AM
From: Mike McFarland
   of 579
Nicotine for newbies...

Description of the Sibia nAChR program


agonist - structural analog that binds a receptor and
mimics the effects of its natural ligand.

antagonist - structural analog that binds to a receptor
without triggering it and blocks the effects of the natural
ligand or agonist.

acetylcholine/ACh - a neurotransmitter released at the vertebrate
neuromuscular junction, and at many central nervous system and
peripheral autonomic) synapses.

further misc links for Nicotinic acetylcholine
-gated integral receptor-channels

Dougherty group, Division of Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology

Electrostatic Properties of the Pore-Lining Region


Nicotinic Receptor Imaging

I don't know what this one is, but did not
want to discard it:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: margie who wrote (431)6/26/1999 12:01:00 PM
From: James Strauss
   of 579
A Jury Trial might Not Be Bad...


Before a Jury, SIBI might be seen as David facing off against Goliath Pfizer... SIBI could call in Ely Lilly and American Home Products as witnesses on their behalf... It sounds to me like Pfizer sees a threat from little SIBI... A Jury of ordinary citizens could see this...


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Mike McFarland who wrote (406)6/26/1999 7:25:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist
   of 579
Mike, I should have listened to you the first time you posted this. I will continue (my part of) the discussion in this thread. Apologies to SIBI followers for the off-topic rambling. Certainly do not want anyone else "creeping ... out, and selling their SIBI"


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (434)6/26/1999 7:45:00 PM
From: Mike McFarland
   of 579
Just continue to ignore me--I'm foolishly
hoping for a dip, just seems like a lot of
uncertainty with PFE, and those two trials
getting close to being wrapped up...and if
I've learned one thing, stocks get whacked when
trials fail, there are always more damn buying
opportunities. That Sibia has more leads coming
wont mean much short term if 1508Y and 1553A

But truth is, Rick and the others are making
a good case to buy this one for everything beyond
1508Y and 1553A . If I hadn't sold off a bit of this
and a bit of that to load up on a couple of other
items I'd be buying. The licences from the other
pharmas are a huge signal, and I cant beleive Pfizer
lawyers are smarter than everybody elses attnys.

The only thing I know for sure, is that everybody
is smarter than me. Man did I get whacked the other
day in cti. Next stop magn, I feel like I'm playing
craps. Might be time to wise up and overweight
somebody elses favorites.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: margie who wrote (431)6/28/1999 1:31:00 PM
From: Luke
   of 579
maybe I'm not supposed to read the parking posts, but anyways...

I was interested in your discussion and posted because i was not happy that Sibi could leave themself open to get played like that. Of course pfizer would do whatever they could. If Sibi really threatened, like on paper, that would be a real silly thing to do, to put all this at risk. But there's a lot of "ifs". Along with having no legal background I realized afterwards that we dont know the status of this thing anyways (or do we?) - so the suit could easily get dismissed anytime if pfizer has no real evidence of a threat. And even if there was a threat, their invalidity or non-infringment arguments may not be accepted. I guess that would be a summary judgement then?. I guess sibi just has to inform people since it takes a while to get it resolved, but it still costs legal fees. Claims that there is prior art is routine and means nothing.

What do y'all make of these Pfizer statements? BS? This seems like a lot of whining for a patent validity suit. Was there maybe an agreement in the past that pfizer might argue gave them rights under these patents, and that we would see another suit over a contract? Probably, though, it is support for a patent misuse arguement, (the arguemtn that if your opponent uses his patent against you improperly to extort $, the patent could be declared invalid). There was a fairly recent bigtime case that supported this line as a basis for invalidity, I think called Nobel or nobelpharma or something. I saw a good article and maybe can find it again for general interest.

<<The action was filed by PFE in anticipation of a patent-infringement suit by SIBI. PFE is seeking a declaratory
judgement from the court to the effect that PFE has not infringed the patents, that the
patents are invalid and that SIBI is misusing its patents.>>

Since many of you are probably at that level, like Rick, what are your experiences in general about how these boardroom decisions on whether to pay or not are made? can one really make a good estimate of risk/reward?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Luke who wrote (436)6/28/1999 1:55:00 PM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 579
>> Was there maybe an agreement in the past that pfizer might
argue gave them rights under these patents? <<

Not that I know of.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (437)6/28/1999 3:18:00 PM
From: Pseudo Biologist
   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,


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10