Its only a matter of time before Gilead is TOAST!!!

[Anonymous]

Here is a quick review of a few patents from their chief competitor which were applied for just this year and last. A quick review of these patents show literally Hundreds of compounds with a EC50 below .25um (were Sofosbuvir came in at) and a CC50 of minimal toxicity. Here we go:

2014: US 8680071
US 20140086873
US 8,507,460

2013: US 20130315866
US 20130064793
US 20130315868
US 20130217644
US 7,951,789
US 7,902,202

Oh By the way. The Patent Infringement trials are going nicely on every continent in the world. The key patent for the 2' Flouro 2 ' Methyl was awarded to this same company by Germany, France and England a few months back and another Infringement suit was filed the same day.

Gilead....better put all that money away. You are going to have to pay it all back (plus a 3X multiplier!!!)

 

[Anonymous]

Here is a quick review of a few patents from their chief competitor which were applied for just this year and last. A quick review of these patents show literally Hundreds of compounds with a EC50 below .25um (were Sofosbuvir came in at) and a CC50 of minimal toxicity. Here we go:

2014: US 8680071
US 20140086873
US 8,507,460

2013: US 20130315866
US 20130064793
US 20130315868
US 20130217644
US 7,951,789
US 7,902,202

Oh By the way. The Patent Infringement trials are going nicely on every continent in the world. The key patent for the 2' Flouro 2 ' Methyl was awarded to this same company by Germany, France and England a few months back and another Infringement suit was filed the same day.

Gilead....better put all that money away. You are going to have to pay it all back (plus a 3X multiplier!!!)

Said the guy shorting GILD. Long and strong, long and strong.

 

[Anonymous]

Said the guy shorting GILD. Long and strong, long and strong.

OP here. NO WAY! listen, I think Idenix clearly has the IP over the sugar and base portion of Sovaldi. That to me means about a 50/50 chance of winning (which one would have to wonder why there isn't more press about considering that Gilead launched at risk at could be awarded a stardard 3X penalty). I think if they do not win in one jurisdiction they will win on appeal or in another or in another country. There are like 8 cases going.

That being said, I would never short Gilead. let me see, you guys made something like 2.5 Billion on just SOF in the first 3 qrts (I know that there was warehousing but it was also with only about 1% of the people that used to treat HCV still treating and it still was used, at least on label with Peg/Riba) Do I expect a drop off this quarter and next ...sure. Do I expect Abbvie to challenge you guys in any meaningful way...NOPE! This is what you have to worry about: A company like Merck takes a license to one of these 200-300 viable Nucs and partners it with their 5172 and 8742 (heck, they might even have a Non-nuc that they can throw on top) and gets the duration of therapy down to a 28 day regimen. Gilead's own "synergy" trial shows that a three drug regimen anchored by a Nuc can reduce treatment to 6 weeks and maintain 100% efficacy.

I just would be nervous holding Gilead stock longer than a week. Some however have larger balls than do I. Serious thoughts would be enjoyed even if you disagree.

 

[Anonymous]

OP here. NO WAY! listen, I think Idenix clearly has the IP over the sugar and base portion of Sovaldi. That to me means about a 50/50 chance of winning (which one would have to wonder why there isn't more press about considering that Gilead launched at risk at could be awarded a stardard 3X penalty). I think if they do not win in one jurisdiction they will win on appeal or in another or in another country. There are like 8 cases going.

That being said, I would never short Gilead. let me see, you guys made something like 2.5 Billion on just SOF in the first 3 qrts (I know that there was warehousing but it was also with only about 1% of the people that used to treat HCV still treating and it still was used, at least on label with Peg/Riba) Do I expect a drop off this quarter and next ...sure. Do I expect Abbvie to challenge you guys in any meaningful way...NOPE! This is what you have to worry about: A company like Merck takes a license to one of these 200-300 viable Nucs and partners it with their 5172 and 8742 (heck, they might even have a Non-nuc that they can throw on top) and gets the duration of therapy down to a 28 day regimen. Gilead's own "synergy" trial shows that a three drug regimen anchored by a Nuc can reduce treatment to 6 weeks and maintain 100% efficacy.

I just would be nervous holding Gilead stock longer than a week. Some however have larger balls than do I. Serious thoughts would be enjoyed even if you disagree.

Meant to say in the first three months - not qrts.

 

[Anonymous]

Meant to say in the first three months - not qrts.

Oh, abbvie could also take a license and partner it with their second generation. The first generation will just be for practical experience (nothing more).

 

[Anonymous]

So you post for months and months predicted this or that and you are wrong on all accounts. Oh, things are going "nicely" right. What hard on do you have against Gilead and at what point do you get so embarrassed that you don't post anymore? I'm embarrassed for you. Kind of pathetic

 

[Anonymous]

So you post for months and months predicted this or that and you are wrong on all accounts. Oh, things are going "nicely" right. What hard on do you have against Gilead and at what point do you get so embarrassed that you don't post anymore? I'm embarrassed for you. Kind of pathetic

Dude, if you want to talk then talk. I think its called an Ad Hominum attack. When you have something more to talk about then "your impressions of me" let me know - else, take it elsewhere. I'm discussing facts and business. Go back to your Mommy's basement for your next bowl of cheerios or pony up a logical counter argument (maybe as to why Gilead isn't at 120-130 a share by now) Who knows, if you are 100% correct and I am 100% wrong I will expect Gilead stock to hit 200-250 a share. The numbers simply do not lie.) Still not sure what you would be correct about though, you only can talk about me. Try defending your company and what will happen, say in a year or two. If you are clueless then just shut up.

This happens to be the first time I have posted here so I am not sure what you are even talking about with your "you post for months and months predicted this or that ". Are you also a little paranoid too?

 

[Anonymous]

Dude, if you want to talk then talk. I think its called an Ad Hominum attack. When you have something more to talk about then "your impressions of me" let me know - else, take it elsewhere. I'm discussing facts and business. Go back to your Mommy's basement for your next bowl of cheerios or pony up a logical counter argument (maybe as to why Gilead isn't at 120-130 a share by now) Who knows, if you are 100% correct and I am 100% wrong I will expect Gilead stock to hit 200-250 a share. The numbers simply do not lie.) Still not sure what you would be correct about though, you only can talk about me. Try defending your company and what will happen, say in a year or two. If you are clueless then just shut up.

This happens to be the first time I have posted here so I am not sure what you are even talking about with your "you post for months and months predicted this or that ". Are you also a little paranoid too?

We will see "how well things are going" in the USPTO trial by how the BPAI responds to document 353 and 354 "CLARK REQUEST FOR REHEARING 1 & 2" submitted respectively on 4/25 & 5/01 . This should give us some clues as to how things will go with this interference. My guess: Not good for the Clark team.

 

[Anonymous]

US 20130315866

Base is heterocyclyl;
A is (CH2)n, cycloalkylene, heterocyclylene or heteroarylene;
n is 1 to 3;

Sovaldi does not use this config.

 

[Anonymous]

US 20130315866

Base is heterocyclyl;
A is (CH2)n, cycloalkylene, heterocyclylene or heteroarylene;
n is 1 to 3;

Sovaldi does not use this config.

same with
20130064793

 

[Anonymous]

US20130315868

X is a D-amino acid residue, or an ester thereof;
Y is hydrogen, —OR1, —SW, or —NR1R2;


NOPE!

 

[Anonymous]

20130217644 is so far off... pathetic, really

 

[Anonymous]

7,951,789

RY is substituted alkyl;
Ra and Rb are selected as follows:
i) Ra and Rb are each independently hydrogen, alkyl, benzyl or substituted benzyl; and
R2 and R3 are each independently H, or R2 and R3 are linked to form a cyclic group by an alkyl, ester or carbamate linkage;


......no dice

 

[Anonymous]

7,902,202... not even a single triple bond to be found on Sovaldi


Sorry Idenix

 

[Anonymous]

US 8680071

R3 and R4 are each independently hydrogen, alkyl, alkenyl, alkynyl, aryl, aralkyl, cycloalkyl or cycloalkenyl;

.... just couldn't mutter phenyl

say it with me... phenyl

 

[Anonymous]

20140086873

Sovaldi starts with S.... but there's not a single sulfur atom to be found in Sovaldi

 

[Anonymous]

8507460

A middle school chemistry teacher could tell you it's not worth bringing this one to the patent brawl.

 

[Anonymous]

Here is a quick review of a few patents from their chief competitor which were applied for just this year and last. A quick review of these patents show literally Hundreds of compounds with a EC50 below .25um (were Sofosbuvir came in at) and a CC50 of minimal toxicity. Here we go:

2014: US 8680071
US 20140086873
US 8,507,460

2013: US 20130315866
US 20130064793
US 20130315868
US 20130217644
US 7,951,789
US 7,902,202

Oh By the way. The Patent Infringement trials are going nicely on every continent in the world. The key patent for the 2' Flouro 2 ' Methyl was awarded to this same company by Germany, France and England a few months back and another Infringement suit was filed the same day.

Gilead....better put all that money away. You are going to have to pay it all back (plus a 3X multiplier!!!)

To sum up... there must have been 10,000+ compounds in these documents... but not a single one encompasses what is Sovaldi

Long GILD big time

 

[Anonymous]

Dude, That's not your argument. Your side already admitted that Idenix "invented" the 2' Methyl 2' Flouro like 1.5 years before they ever "conceived" of the idea. Their arguemts have been all about "Enablement" and "reduction to Practice". Idenix did not do a good job showing how to make a 2' Flouro 2' Methyl and rely on "constructive reduction to practice". They also argue that "anyone skilled in the arts as of 2001 (when they patented) could produce this variant with essentially the chemical formula. With a chemistry degree, I would agree but I am not a Patent attorney. Needless to say, my guess is that they have over 50% chance of winning this, especially since S1-4 (the 4 patents and Patent applications that were submitted prior to Clarks patent being submitted) were dated prior to Clarks original patent. That's essentially why they "lost" 105871 Patent Interference - its because Gilead convinced the Judge to not "allow" these earlier patents to be considered. It is going to appeal with Judge Stark's court before a jury. My humble opinion (because once you see this laid out its a little bit overwhelming - You will lose. Gilead also argued that Idenix's "enablement was not complete. To do this they actually used the vacation and sick leave schedules of Key Idenix employees from the date of filing saying essentially "If they were serious - They used the lawyer term of Diligence, Then these employees would not have taken vacation or have been absent on these days.

Idenix may lose in the end but trust me ...this thing is MUCH closer than anyone can call. THe BPAI still did not rule on "Clarks" request or Gileads request for a re-hearing on 105981 - My gut is that this judge is siding on Idenix side. I will know a lot more based on his ruling to the 4/25 & 5/01 requests.

oh, that's just for the US. You still have China, Europe, Canada, Norway (on appeal) and Australia (each with different laws governing IP). Again, I hope you make a lot of money on Gilead (sincerely) just saying that to hold this stock - you have bigger cohonas than me.

oh, just one more thing...You do realize that the C-SWIFT trial is just a proxy until IDX-21437 is "allowed" back in the US for US Site addition to its NUC (which is as effective or slightly more effective than SOF) + IDX-719 (just think GS-5816).
My guess is a exclusive sub-license to Merck for a 4-6 week 3 class regimen that might just be very competitive (if not more competitive) than your third generation.

Don't worry - You guys are actively looking for a PI to add to your combo too: Look up US 2014/0017198 published Jan 16, 2014

Chow!!

 

[Anonymous]

8507460

A middle school chemistry teacher could tell you it's not worth bringing this one to the patent brawl.

I am a High school Chemistry teacher. Will that do? I disagree. Many do. These new Patents are Novel forms of the Pro-Drug. The Methyl ( a 200- 209 pM diameter) group is what causes the chain termination thru classic steric hindrance. The Fluoro doesn't cause any harm as was always feared and seams to as stable as the hydroxyl group (which is what is natural) and it sure helped gilead attempt to go around the "Method-of-Treatment" patents for 2' Methyl Nucleosides which also was first. My humble suggestion: don't be so arrogant about how this will all play out. My guess is a settlement at some time prior to the first Jury ( which is the only place that penalties such as the 3X penalty, I forget what USC code it is for launching at risk and being judged to not own the patents). Other than that - Good Luck (in a sincere way)