SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (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,

PB

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (438)6/29/1999 12:44:00 PM
From: Mike McFarland
   of 579
 
*OT chit chat
Good discussion here of late, not sure
I understood it all, but I gave it my
best. I read it all again yesterday. With
the article in the Journal, who knows,
maybe somebody will notice Sibia soon.

I re-established my half position in
this yesterday, yes, a significant portion
of that pathetic volume was just little ol
me. Had to spend a third of my MAGN to do it,
timing was not so good, I had some magn at 1.5,
took a smidgen of gain, but could have had more
if I'd held off til today, no matter, nearly
20 grand in magn was just too much, back to
just an insane amount.

Anyway...
I'll go to a full position in sibi if we see
a significant dip, there are always buying
ops, but I think I want to be in this now,
espcially if the PFE cloud suddenly lifts.

Thanks to all for your opinions here,
as well as on the patent thread. I am
going to discount PFE's suit as a merely
a mechanism to keep the lawyers busy...
job security and all that. Maybe PFE is
just using it as a negiotiaing took to
snag a lower royalty rate than the others,
then they can look good against the others
paying the extravagant half percent.
Of course a half a percent of what? That
I'd like to know.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Thanks again
all, sorry I don't have anything to contribute
other than that I'm on back on board.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Mike McFarland who wrote (439)7/4/1999 3:33:00 PM
From: James Strauss
   of 579
 
What's significant is that SIBI continues to build a base in the 5.00 area... Lilly and AHP are betting on SIBI... That's good enough for me...

Jim

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Mike McFarland who wrote (439)7/11/1999 6:51:00 AM
From: Jongmans
   of 579
 
Article in Financial Times mentioning SIBIA

Article:"Conquering Alzheimer" in Financial Times:

ft.com

( free registration required)

Martin

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Jongmans who wrote (441)7/11/1999 11:12:00 PM
From: RCMac
   of 579
 
Finally, SIBI/BMY Alzheimer's collaboration will begin clinical trials by year-end.

Thursday's report about ELN(Athena)'s work toward an Alzheimer's vaccine took all the headlines (lots of chatter on CNBC, lead stories on TV network news, WSJ and other major newspaper articles, etc), but the WSJ article also noted the good news that BMY would begin clinical trials of SIBI's anti-amyloid plaque protease inhibitor drug candidate:

"[I]f initial safety trials go well [BMY] will quickly move into large-scale tests of effectiveness. In a high-risk gambit to get a drug to market faster, the company will simultaneously conduct four large trials . . . rather than the more typical procedure of conducting consecutive rounds of efficacy trials. . . . The trials will involve several thousand patients and last as long as two years." (WSJ 7/8/99, p. A8, continuation of ELN/Alzheimer's article on front page - hardcopy, sorry, I don't access the interactive edition).

BMY will apparently be spending serious money on these trials. Its apparent strong commitment to development hasn't, I believe, been publicized before now. The 4/30/99 SIBI 10-K noted only that the "most advanced compounds from this [BMY Alzheimer's] collaboration are in pre-clinical development" [p. 10, see also table from p.6, included in post #308 on this thread Message 8680842 .

Rick Harmon's post #384 noted that SIBI IR was still saying early this month that SIBI "expected to hear of clinical plans soon" techstocks.com , Rick having earlier muttered a couple of times about how tight-lipped SIBI was being about this collaboration , e.g. techstocks.com )

On the ELN/Athena effort, see also: techstocks.com

--RCM

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: RCMac who wrote (442)7/12/1999 2:03:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 579
 
>> In a high-risk gambit to get a drug to market faster, the company will
simultaneously conduct four large trials . . . . <<

Nice. Won't be boring, although it's becoming "believe it when I see it" material.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (443)7/15/1999 8:53:00 AM
From: LLCF
   of 579
 
SIBI licenses patented transcription based assay technology to Pharmacia & Upjohn.

Number 4 and counting....

DAK

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LLCF who wrote (444)7/15/1999 9:14:00 AM
From: scaram(o)uche
   of 579
 
0.5% is suddenly adding up to some big numbers. (eom)

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