BioPharma« Terug naar discussie overzicht

1. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:04

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   crackedtooth schreef:

   DoDD:
   
   welke link zoek jij hem? (en welk case nummer)
   en ben je abonnee of 8 cent per pagina??
   
   PS. zou je evt kunnen mailen?
   ook evt laatste brief van trca motie waarin de iplex noemen als superior drug?
   

   bvd
   
   ook de eerdere motie, of is dat lastig zoeken?
   
2. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:11

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   En meer:
   
   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
   OAKLAND DIVISION
   GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
   TERCICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
   Plaintiffs,
   v.
   INSMED INCORPORATED, a Virginia
   Corporation, CELTRIX
   PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware
   Corporation, and INSMED THERAPEUTIC
   PROTEINS, INC., a Colorado Corporation
   Defendants.
   AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
   
   Case No. C-04-5429 CW (EMC)
   DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
   TRIAL BRIEF UNDER L.R. 16-10(B)(8)
   Date: October 27, 2006
   Time: 1:30 p.m.
   Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor
   The Honorable Claudia Wilken
   Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 678 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 9
   
   DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF UNDER L.R. 16-10(B)(8)
   .v
   WASH_1706099.1
   1
   Defendants Insmed, Inc. (“Insmed, Inc.”), Celtrix Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Insmed Therapeutic Proteins, Inc. (collectively “Insmed”) hereby supplement their Trial Brief pursuant to Local Rule 16-10(b)(8) and paragraph 3(e) of the Court’s Order for Pretrial Preparation. This supplement is necessitated by the Plaintiffs’ improperly filing two trial briefs, including one addressing issues that were not raised during the parties’ pretrial meetings.
   I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE IMPROPERLY FILED TWO TRIAL BRIEFS
   Local Rule 16-10(b)(8) provides for the filing of “briefs on all significant disputed issues of law, including procedural and evidentiary issues.” This Court’s Order for Pretrial Preparation, using this same language calls these briefs “Trial Briefs:”
   (e) Trial briefs. Briefs on all significant disputed issues of law,
   including foreseeable procedural and evidentiary issues, which remain
   after the pretrial meeting.
   Order of Pretrial Preparation at ¶ 3(e). Thus, the Local Rules and the Court’s Order clearly do not call for separate briefs, one under Local Rule 16(b)(8) and a separate brief under paragraph 3(e) of the Court’s Order.
   In keeping with these rules, Defendants meet and conferred with Plaintiffs regarding several issues related to whether certain issues to be tried should be bifurcated. When agreement was not reached Defendants filed a trial brief on those issues on October 13. Plaintiffs also filed a trial brief on October 13 on the bifurcation issues, which they called their “Brief under Local Rule 16(b)(8).”
   Plaintiffs, however, also filed on October 13, a separate brief which they call a “Trial Brief.” It addresses a number of issues that the parties did not discuss at their pretrial meetings.
   In light of Plaintiffs filing of a second “Trial Brief” on issues not discussed at the pretrial meeting, Defendants hereby supplement their Trial Brief Under Local Rule 16(b)(8).
   II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE CASE
   A. The Parties
   Plaintiff Genentech is the assignee of all, or a portion of the right, title and interest in the three patents at issue. While Genentech did work in the field of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 during the time period these patents were applied for, it abandoned that work entirely in 1997. This work lay fallow, until 2001 when Tercica, a newly formed company, obtained an exclusive license to patents in Genentech’s IGF-I/IGFBP-3 portfolio. Tercica does not itself practice two of the three patents at issue. Defendant Insmed traces its work in the IGF-I/IGFBP-3 area back to the mid to late 1980’s when its predecessor Biogrowth was involved in some of the earliest work in this field. Indeed, Biogrowth filed patent applications for use of the IGF-I/IGFBP-3 complex before any of the applications for the patents-in-suit were filed. Biogrowth was acquired by Defendant Celtrix Pharmaceuticals in the early 1990’s and Celtrix continued its work with IGF-I and IGFBP-3 continuously until its acquisition by Insmed in 2000.
   Defendants have meet with Genentech over the years to discuss various potential collaborations and business relationships that involved obtaining know how from Genentech related to IGF-I/IGFBP-3 for various indications, most particularly diabetes. There were never “five failed attempts” to license the patents-in-suit as Plaintiffs contend. Since 2000, when Insmed acquired Celtrix, there have been 2 sets of discussions. The first of these discussions were initiated in early 2001 primarily focused on a business partnership for the treatment of diabetes in which Insmed would license various regulatorydata sets and intellectual property that would facilitate it’s development of a rhIGF-I and a rhIGf-I/rhIGFBP-3 product for diabetes. The second discussion was focused on Genentech’s interest in licensing the rhIGFBP-3 information and intellectual property from Insmed. Defendants have also meet with numerous other companies over the same period of time to engage in similar discussions.
   Such discussions are a normal part of the biotechnology business and certainly the mere fact such discussions took place is not evidence of infringement of any particular patent. As the Supreme Court has recognized, there are reasons a company might attempt to negotiate a license even if it does not believe its product infringes another’s patent. Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc., v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402
   U.S. 313, 334 (1971).
   B. The Issues
   1. The Asserted Claims of the ’414 Patent are Invalid The evidence will establish that Genentech, in a race with at least one other company to patent methods for making IGF-I, went to the Patent Office too soon with an idea that was not fully enabled and with a written description that is not as broad as the claim construction it has obtained from the Court. Hence, claims 1-4 and 9-10 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement and insufficient written description. Given the construction that the Court has given independent claim 1 of the ’414 patent, that claim and the claims in suit that depend from it (claims 2-4) are also invalid as indefinite.
   1
   2. Defendants have not Induced Infringement the ’151 Patent and all its Claims are Invalid due to Inequitable Conduct
   Plaintiffs have two different experts with two different theories regarding whether Defendants Insmed and Insmed Therapeutic Proteins have induced infringement the ‘151 Patent.
   2 First, Dr.Charles Roberts offers the opinion, based on studies in rats, that any approved dose of IPLEX™ infringes the asserted claims. Second, Dr. Melvin Grumbach offers the opinion that these Defendants infringe in doses above 1.5 mg/kg per day, only a portion of the approved dosage range.3 Despite the fact humans are the patients who receive Insmed’s IPLEX™, Plaintiffs’ experts have provided no human data to meet their burden on infringement.
   4 Human data presented at trial will demonstrate that Defendants have not induced infringement of the ’151 patent.
   5 All the asserted claims of the ’151 patent are invalid due to at least four separate acts of inequitable conduct because individuals substantively involved in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’151 patent:
   (1) withheld material prior art from the Examiner;
   (2) misrepresented the scope and content of the prior art in the patent specification;
   (3) withheld test results directly contrary 1 The Court granted summary judgment that Defendants infringe claims 1, 2 and 9 of the ’414 patent, but the Court has granted Defendants leave to seek reconsideration of that ruling as to claims 1 and 2 [Dkt. No. 609] and that motion is currently pending.
   2 Plaintiffs have dropped their allegation that Defendant Celtrix, Inc. infringed the ’151 patent.
   3 Dr. Grumbach indicated there was
3. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:15

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   en nog meer vervolg op de 2e pretrial motion van INSM:
   
   3 Dr. Grumbach indicated there was insufficient data for him to offer an opinion on infringement at doses any less than 1.5 mg/kg.
   4 See e.g., Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 (seeking to exclude Grumbach testimony).
   5 Plaintiffs contend that contributory infringement of the ’151 patent is also at issue. As set forth in Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8, however, Plaintiffs have waived this claim by not raising it
   previously in the litigation.
   to the results utilized to obtain allowance of the claims; and (4) withheld material information regarding a declarant’s relationship with the applicant, Genentech.
   6
   3. Defendants do not Infringe the ‘287 Patent and its Claims are Invalid Three different sets of experimental data demonstrate that Defendants do not literally infringe the claims 1-3, 6-9 and 17-18 of the ‘287 patent. In contrast, Plaintiffs present only one set of
   experiments, fatally flawed by the meddling of their own attorneys.
   7 Defendants likewise do not infringe claim 20 under the doctrine of equivalents because the scope of the claim was narrowed by prosecution history estoppel8 and, even if it wasn’t, the DNA sequence of Insmed’s IGFBP-3 only shares 58% homology with claimed sequence and, therefore, is not equivalent.
   The asserted claims are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement and lack of written description support. In addition, one of the named inventors Dr. Robert Baxter did not contribute to the claimed invention and, thus is improperly named as an inventor. The patent is invalid on this basis as well.
   4. Damages
   Plaintiffs launched their product Increlex™ in January, 2006 and Insmed launched iPlex™ in late May, 2006. Plaintiffs damages theories are based upon sales projections rather than the reality of what has actually transpired in the market. In addition, Plaintiffs’ experts are putting forth lost profits and reasonable royalty calculations that are not supportable.9 Accordingly, even if there is a finding a
   liability the amount of damages will be substantially less than Plaintiffs seek.
   III. ISSUES OF LAW
   Plaintiffs raise several issue of law that they did not discuss with Defendants prior to filing their Trial Brief.
   6 Plaintiffs represent that the ’151 patent covers “the use of the complex to treat Severe Primary IGFD.” Plaintiffs’ Br. at 3. This is incorrect. Indeed, the term “Severe Primary IGFD” was coined and described as a condition long after the ’151 patent issued.
   7 See Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 (seeking to exclude Montgomery testimony).
   8 See Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2.
   9 See Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 (seeking to exclude Blaufarb testimony).
   
4. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:18

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   en meer:
   
   5
   A. Evidentiary Issues at Trial
   Plaintiffs list a number of exhibits from Defendants’ Trial Exhibit List that they indicated were not produced in discovery or are otherwise objectionable. This Trial Brief is the first time Plaintiffs
   raised these issues with Defendants. Moreover, there are numerous exhibits on Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit that Plaintiffs apparently did not produce in discovery or that are otherwise objectionable as going
   beyond the issue to be decided at trial. Apparently, Plaintiffs seek to apply a double standard to such documents. In any event, the parties are to meet and confer on trial exhibit objections on October 17 and any remaining issues can be addressed at the Pre-Trial Conference.
   B. Legal Standard for Indirect Infringement
   10 This appears to be an issue best resolved in the context of the jury instructions. Nevertheless, should the jury reject Dr. Roberts’ theory that all approved does of IPLEX™ infringe the asserted claims and only accept Dr. Grumbach’s theory that doses at the upper end of the approved range infringe (doses over 1.5 mg/kg), then the product clearly has a substantial non-infringing use (at the lower doses) and there can be no contributory infringement.
   11 As for both contributory and induced infringement, Plaintiffs will be required to establish that patients have actually received doses in the range Dr. Grumbach believes is infringing. Alloc, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[D]irect infringement . . . is a prerequisite to indirect infringement’).
   With respect to the issue of intent, the Federal Circuit has held that to establish active inducement it must be established that the defendant possessed the specific intent to encourage another’s infringement and not merely that the defendant had knowledge of the acts alleged to constitute inducement. The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements.
   Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
   10 Plaintiffs have only asserted indirect infringement of the ’151 patent.
   11 As noted above, Plaintiffs contend that contributory infringement of the ’151 patent is also at issue. As set forth in Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8, however, Plaintiffs have waived this claim by not raising it previously in the litigation.
   
5. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:21

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   en meer:
   
   C. The Jury Should be Asked to Provide an Advisory Verdict on Inequitable Conduct The parties have stipulated that they will respond to their respective bifurcation motions on October 20. At that time Defendants will oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Bifurcate Inequitable Conduct. This Court clearly has the discretion to see an advisory verdict from the jury on this issue. Indeed, as this Court has recently noted “the use of an advisory jury for the defense of inequitable conduct is a common practice in patent cases.” Fresenius Med. Care Holding, Inc.. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., No. C 03-01431 SBA (EDL), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42159 at *29-34 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2006) (citing, Modine Mfg. Co. v. Allen Group, Inc., 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16413, 1993 WL 248654 *6 (N.D. Cal. 1989);
   Echometer Co. v. Lufkin Indus., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 513, 2004 WL 575954 (N.D. Tex. 2002);
   Cargill, Inc. v. Sears Petroleum & Transp. Corp., 388 F. Supp. 2d 37, 62 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (using advisory jury to address threshold questions of materiality and intent to deceive)). Given the overlap in witnesses, both fact and expert, as well as an overlap of some of the factual evidence, Defendants believe that bifurcation of inequitable conduct is not appropriate.
   D. Willfulness and Damages Should be Bifurcated For the reasons set forth in their Trial Brief Under Local Rule 16-10(b)(8), the issues of willful infringement and damages should be bifurcated and tried after the jury has returned a verdict on the liability issues. Trying the issue of willfulness with liability will prejudice Defendants in at least two ways. First, testimony regarding the competence of Defendants’ opinions and the subjective inquiry into their due care is irrelevant to the objective analysis of the liability issues. Balancing such testimony with those of liability will therefore confuse the jury. Second, hearing testimony regarding willfulness may unfairly taint the jury on the liability issues, harming Defendants’ ability to put forward a defense to the claims of infringement and validity unclouded by irrelevant issues of willfulness. Conversely, Plaintiffs would suffer little or no prejudice from bifurcating the issues of willfulness and damages from liability. Because the willfulness and damages evidence do not substantially overlap with the liability claims, bifurcation would cause little harm or prejudice to
   Plaintiffs’ presentation of their case in chief.
   Bifurcation would moreover simplify and distill the jury’s consideration of complex liability issues without having to consider willfulness and damages testimony and evidence having no bearing on the liability phase. The three asserted patents will require significantly different evidence for the liability phase alone. The fact that neither party has one expert witness who can alone testify with regard to all three asserted patents only underscores the complexity of the liability phase of trial.
   Finally, bifurcation of the willfulness and damages issues would serve judicial economy in the event that the jury finds in favor of Defendants on some or all of the liability issues, in which case the issues relating to willfulness or damages may either be reduced or eliminated.
   E. The Evidence will not Support a Finding of Willful Infringement
   Defendants obtained opinions of counsel as to all three patents long before they decided to launched IPLEX™. Those opinions, coupled with Defendants’ substantial defense to infringement and reasonable belief that the defense would be successful if litigated, defeat Plaintiffs’ allegations of willfulness.
   
6. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:24

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   en het laatste stukje (pffff):
   
   F. Defendants, Rather than Plaintiffs, are Entitled to an Award of Attorney Fees and Costs Because Plaintiffs will not be able to sustain their willful infringement allegations, even if there is a finding a liability, an award of attorney fees and costs will not be appropriate. In contrast, should Defendants prevail on their defense of inequitable conduct an award of fees and costs to Defendants would be appropriate. See Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 339 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003), quoting, Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker Sales Corp., 267 F.3d 1370, 1380 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (“exceptional” cases “are those cases involving ‘inequitable conduct before the [Patent Office]; litigation misconduct; vexatious, unjustified, and otherwise bad faith litigation; a frivolous suit
   or willful infringement’”).
   G. A Permanent Injunction is Not Appropriate in this Case The Supreme Court recently made it clear that injunctions are no longer virtually automatic in patent cases. Rather, should there be a finding of liability in this case, this Court will need to assess whether Plaintiffs can satisfy the “traditional four-factor framework that governs the award of injunctive relief.” eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C. 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1841 (2006). One of those factors involves the public interest. Here, an injunction would involve pulling from the market an FDA approved Orphan Drug that is currently being prescribed to a number of patients. As Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief states “patients are highly unlikely to change therapies once begun.” Pls. Trial Br. at 5.
   An injunction would deprive physicians of the option to prescribe IPLEX™ and is contrary to the patient’s and, thus, the public interest. See, e.g., Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech,
   Inc., 666 F. Supp. 1379, 1400-01 (N.D. Cal. 1987); Hybritech, Inc. v. Abbott Lab., No. CV 86-7461/AK (PX), 1987 WL 123997 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 1987), aff’d, 849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. Civ. A. 03-027-SLR, Civ. A. 03-283-SLR, 2003 WL 22843072, at *2 (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2003), aff’d, Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 04-1098, 99 Fed. Appx. 928 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2004); Datascope Corp. v. Kontron, Inc., 611 F.Supp. 889, 895
   (D. Mass. 1985), aff’d, 786 F.2d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Mylan Pharma., Inc. v. Thompson, 207 F. Supp.2d 476, 488 (N.D. W. Va. 2001).
   Respectfully submitted,
   DATE: October 16, 2006 HOWREY LLP
   /s/Rick C. Chang
   FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
   /s/Larry L. Shatzer
   Larry L. Shatzer
   Counsel for Defendants
   
7. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:26

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Cracked,
   
   De rest mail ik je wel, dinsdagavond of woensdag. Morgen en een deel van dinsdag zit ik voor zaken in het buitenland.
   
   mvg, E.
   Trouwens: het is duidelijk dat de verdediging van INSM dezelfde punten maakt als wij mbt injunction: Niet in het publieke belang!
   
   Sjit: zie net dat Rod op iHub hetzelfde heeft gepost. Dat had me heel wat knip- en plakwerk bespaard...
8. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:32

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   Do DD schreef:

   Cracked,
   
   De rest mail ik je wel, dinsdagavond of woensdag. Morgen en een deel van dinsdag zit ik voor zaken in het buitenland.
   
   mvg, E.
   Trouwens: het is duidelijk dat de verdediging van INSM dezelfde punten maakt als wij mbt injunction: Niet in het publieke belang!
   
   Sjit: zie net dat Rod op iHub hetzelfde heeft gepost. Dat had me heel wat knip- en plakwerk bespaard...
   

   nee hoor, is top, zeker dat goed is dan, dank
   
   Hm.. DoDD
   
   "Plaintiffs launched their product Increlex™ in January, 2006 and Insmed launched iPlex™ in late May, 2006. Plaintiffs damages theories are based upon sales projections rather than the reality of what has actually transpired in the market. In addition, Plaintiffs’ experts are putting forth lost profits and reasonable royalty calculations that are not supportable.9 Accordingly, even if there is a finding a
   "
   
   is die brief van TRCA ook al publiek?
9. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:40

   auteur info

   •    [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   •    Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Mooi werk DoD!!
   Het lijkt steeds duidelijker te worden dat louter maximaal wat geld betreffende patentschending betaald gaat worden.
   
   Psycho
   die bij lezing der stukken voordeel heeft gehad van een relatie van enige jaren met een juriste
   PS
   Real - Barca 2-0 (2-0 van Nistelrooij; wereldgozer die Marco)
   Nog 10 minuten
10. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 22:44

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Cracked,
    
    Ja, inderdaad, maar het zal niet over de sales projections gaan van INSM, maar van die van TRCA. Het is een beetje onwaarschijnlijk dat TRCA een inschatting kan maken van de sales projections van INSM (zeker als INSM geen geidentificeerde patientenaantallen meer publiceert). Dat puntje is dus ook verklaard.
    
    E.
    TRCA/DNA brief is publiek. Stuur ik je nog op.
11. [verwijderd] 22 oktober 2006 23:43

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    top, alvast bedankt
12. [verwijderd] 23 oktober 2006 00:15

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Goed werk Do, bedankt.
    Groet Beur
13. [verwijderd] 23 oktober 2006 00:45

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Bedankt voor het posten, leuk om te lezen :)
    
    

    quote:

    Do DD schreef:

    Trouwens: het is duidelijk dat de verdediging van INSM dezelfde punten maakt als wij mbt injunction: Niet in het publieke belang!
    [/quote]
    Leuk.. maar bijzonder zwak. Om te beginnen is een makkelijk antwoord op "patients are highly unlikely to change therapies once begun" Ok, dan mag Iplex alleen nog aan deze patienten geleverd worden, voor de rest injuction.
    
    Ook is de public interst niet heilig, ook niet bij geneesmiddelen (denk er ook aan dat patenten geacht worden de ontwikkeling van medicijnen te beschermen, wat ook een vorm van public interst is)
    
    [quote]http://www.bu.edu/law/scitech/volume1/YANG.PDF
    
    The public interest defense, however, has beensignificantly weakened by the United States Court for the Federal Circuit. In Shiley,Inc. v. Bentley Laboratories, the Federal Circuit found that the fact that removingan infringing blood oxygenator from the market might have an adverse effect oncandidates for surgery was insufficient grounds for denying an injunction. The court did, however, delay the effect of the injunction for six months to minimizeproblems for hospitals required to change their systems.

    Ik hoop maar dat deze claim vooral in de brief is komen te staan als reactie op TRCA's claim dat wisselen van medicatie niet mogelijk is, en niet omdat dit het beste is wat de advocaten uit vier factor test (http://www.bakerbotts.com/infocenter/publications/Detail.aspx?id=b2f8aa86-5740-4d9b-98d2-90adec3e87d2) konden halen...
14. [verwijderd] 23 oktober 2006 01:11

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Maecanas: jij vergeet blackberry ruling
    :p
    
    en injunctie is wel enige wat probleem kan zijn voor US dat is
    zoals gezegd iedere andere uitkomst proces, of het nu volle overwinning insm is of van trca..in alle andere gevallen goed voor insmed.. (alleen ene iets beter dan andere scenario)
15. [verwijderd] 23 oktober 2006 07:43

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Maecenas,
    
    Shiley,Inc. v. Bentley Laboratories speelde in 1986. Dit is dus een ruling van voor het arrest van het Supreme Court: eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C. 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1841 (2006) waar werd vastgesteld dat het 4-factor principe om schade te bepalen ook in patentzaken van toepassing is.
    
    Ter herinnering: de vier criteria:
    
    1) irreparable harm from not issuing an injunction
    2) whether an adequate remedy exists in law (damages)
    3) whether the injunction would be in the public interest
    4) whether a balance of hardships would tip in the plaintiff’s favor
    
    Het is logisch dat over 1 en 2 en 4 niets wordt gezegd omdat eerst nog moet worden vastgesteld in het proces dat TRCA uberhaupt schade heeft geleden door de acties van INSM.
    
    3. wordt apart vermeld met voorbeelden uit de medische wereld.
    
    Shatzner weet volgens mij wel wat hij doet.
    
    mvg, E.
    En nu gauw naar Schiphol.
16. [verwijderd] 23 oktober 2006 08:54

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    Do DD schreef:

    Net van Yahoo geplukt (apenny4em):
    
    'If TRCA are sure they can capitalize on the patents, why are they so eager to do the deal with Ipsen now? Why aren't they waiting until after the trial, when their bargaining position with Ipsen should be so much better?'
    
    mvg, E.
    

    Ja dat is een goede! Dat geeft aan hoeveel vertrouwen heeft in hun eigen zaak.
17. [verwijderd] 23 oktober 2006 09:06

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    Do DD schreef:

    Cracked,
    
    Ja, inderdaad, maar het zal niet over de sales projections gaan van INSM, maar van die van TRCA. Het is een beetje onwaarschijnlijk dat TRCA een inschatting kan maken van de sales projections van INSM (zeker als INSM geen geidentificeerde patientenaantallen meer publiceert). Dat puntje is dus ook verklaard.
    
    E.
    TRCA/DNA brief is publiek. Stuur ik je nog op.
    

    Dit geeft gelijk aan waarom INSM zo weinig pr's uitgeeft. Ze willen zo min mogelijk naar buiten brengen. Ik denk dat na de rechtzaak INSM open kaart gaat spelen en duidelijk voorspellingen gaan doen. INSM heeft dit slim aangepakt.
18. [verwijderd] 23 oktober 2006 09:39

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    M.A.D.W. schreef:

    [quote=Do DD]
    Cracked,
    
    Ja, inderdaad, maar het zal niet over de sales projections gaan van INSM, maar van die van TRCA. Het is een beetje onwaarschijnlijk dat TRCA een inschatting kan maken van de sales projections van INSM (zeker als INSM geen geidentificeerde patientenaantallen meer publiceert). Dat puntje is dus ook verklaard.
    
    E.
    TRCA/DNA brief is publiek. Stuur ik je nog op.
    [/quote]
    
    Dit geeft gelijk aan waarom INSM zo weinig pr's uitgeeft. Ze willen zo min mogelijk naar buiten brengen. Ik denk dat na de rechtzaak INSM open kaart gaat spelen en duidelijk voorspellingen gaan doen. INSM heeft dit slim aangepakt.
    

    Je hebt grote kans dat INSM de kwartaalcijfers uitstellen tot na de rechtzaak. Ze willen zo min mogelijk naar buiten brengen wat in de rechtzaak naar voren gebracht kan worden door de tegenpartij.
19. Klaasd1 23 oktober 2006 15:24

    auteur info

    •    Klaasd1

      Lid sinds: 14 dec 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 17 mei 2024

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 26

      Gegeven: 2

    •    Aantal posts: 438

    quote voorbeurs 1.19 - 1.34 .
    Verhandelt voorbeurs 1.35 :)
    
    Klaas
20. [verwijderd] 23 oktober 2006 15:54

    auteur info

    •    [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    •    Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Wat is er aan de hand vandaag op Yahoo? Ik heb nog geen basher gezien op het forum.