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

Quote












Anonymous said:
This is why I think Idenix's suit is toast rather than Gilead

Jury folk especially dislike patent trolls who:
1) permutate every conceivable molecule in a patent, then
2) sue anyone who actually tries to discover that it really cures something
(If this scenario was legal, there would be zero innovation)

Jury folk also won't take kindly to a couple thousand pages of painful chemical jargon & hours upon hours of industry experts yammering on and on and on... about a few topics, that quite frankly, America deeply loathes: chemistry & patent law.

And even more so, if in the hundreds of pages of original patent submissions, Idenix failed to include the correct functional groups... instead resorting to decade-old lab logs (which... could.... be.... fabricated?).

Weak sauce indeed

It will be Gilead's simple argument that the Jury will actually wrap their heads around... that Pharmasset actually did some old school research & found a cure (despite the fact that it was written down in an Idenix lab book... and how exactly was Pharmasset supposed to be aware of that?)

I also wish Idenix the best: but it needs to be from finding their own cure rather than attacking another company's success with a legal army.

I am more interested in the Merck method patent; any other thoughts?
whoever OP is... he/she has a great nose
Click to expand...

Again, nice to have a working discussion here about two stocks that have intrigued me for years ( I used to own several Thousand "original" shares of Gilead and was quite the "pumper" back then; it was back when Tamiflu was either pre-clinical or in phase 1 - back when they co-promoted Roferon with Roche) Owned a good amount of Pharmasett that I purchased at sub 10 dollars a share too.

In reference to Patents S1-4, team clark has never tried to argue that team Sommadossi/ Storerdid not have the correct atomic arrangement. The mere fact that there is an ongoing USPTO interference trial confirms that the Patent Office believes that (1) patent application or more precisely- one or more patent application claims "interferes" with one or more claims from an existing Patent. That is the definition of an interference action under the pre-2013 patent laws.In the case of 105871, it was Idenix's 2008 Patent application which interfered with Gileads "Clark" patent of 2005. In the second interference, it is Gilead's application that interferes with the "600" Patent of Idenix. These actions carry no penalty or judgment other than deciding which company "invented" the particular claims which are identical and then (after appeal) the patent office will delete or nullify those claims from the body of Patent application or patent held in the files. Only an infringement action held in a district court with or without a jury can decide infringement and can issue penalties and fines. Its very confusing so please don't take this as "condescending information".

With all that being said, your voice is just as powerful as mine in an jury. If, after reviewing the facts, you still believe that Idenix's claims were not original art or were are not valid than so be it. We will see how it all plays out.

This was my first clue (prior to all the discovery that is now readily available on those two sites that I gave you) That Idenix was the "first to invent" . It comes from a civil suit by the only named "inventor" of the molecule in question and Gilead's key patent. It was filed in 2008 when Idenix wasn't on anyone's radar screen. I will quote the key paragraph but please look it up for yourself:

"Case 5:08-cv-00204-CLS Document 30 Filed 12/17/08 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
JEREMY CLARK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil Action No. 08-S-0204-NE ) RAYMOND F. SCHINAZI, Ph.D.; ) and PHARMASSET, INC., ) ) Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION

During a seven month period between November 2002 through May 2003, and
while employed by Pharmasset pursuant to the foregoing agreement, plaintiff
conceived of, developed, invented and tested a molecular compound, now referred to as PSI-6130, which he thought could have enormous potential to treat and even cure HVC, type 1 infections."

So in an unrelated suit, Clark shows the timeline of (Nov 2002-may 2003). This intrigued me because I knew That Idenix's Patents and Patent applications were prior to this date.
 






"I also wish Idenix the best: but it needs to be from finding their own cure rather than attacking another company's success with a legal army. "

ThankYou- I also wish Gilead success, and all who are truly at the bottom (sales) who are just trying to feed their family.

Now, as you know, Idenix does have two NUCS in humans at the present. A recent abstract submission.....
( http://www.idenix.com/publications/ )

....during EASL informs us as to the parameters and PK of this Uridine based Nuc. I would be shocked if it was a 2' Flouro compound - with the probability of it being a 2' Hydroxl (remember, it is the 2' Methyl which is the working agent in the structure - blocking the "binding site" of other nucleotides in the chain -that being the 3' location because this iw where they attach to each other (that's why they call these Chain terminators).

Their robust phase 2 program (rumor is 240 pts) has commenced or will shortly commence in Canada, Australia, France and Belgium and the plans are to introduce an NDA to the FDA for permission to enter Phase 2 trials in the USA this fall. If the FDA says no based on the current portfolio of data then a re-introduced NDA with 12 weeks of data will be re-submitted for a Jan 2015 Phase 2 trials in the USA.

This is the Upshot here: My guess is that this drug (once allowed back in the USA) will be partnered with (on a non-exclusive basis) a late stage PI ( a non boosted one) for the benefit of a more robust pan-genotypic regimen that will be effective in arlier stage pts in a 4 (holy grail) or 6 week regimen and in late stage pts in a 6-8 week regimen.

The SYNERGY trial has informed us that 3 potent DAA's can yield a reliable 95-100% cure in as little as 6 weeks. I am completely open to believe that a 4 weeks (28 day - one prescription) is possible given the right components of the mix.

While waiting on IDX-21437 to be accepted as a NDA, companies are free to use SOF as a surrogate to Confirm/Deny this theory. They are doing that. A 28 day regimen would offer a competitive marketing advantage over the excellent results of 2DAA SOF based regimen.

I would also expect Gilead to soon initiate 3DAA cocktail studies soon in order to be competitive.

If a true 28 day cure is within reach (very possible) then the bar has been raised and any other company must compete with this new paradigm in order to "stay in this game", at least in 1st world countries.

Thoughts?
 






"I am more interested in the Merck method patent; any other thoughts? "

My guess is they have thrown their lot in with the success/failure of the company they "licensed" their IP too.

Any serious review of the IP landscape informs us of only one real competitor (in the IP challenge) to Gilead. I am aware of the other toothless threats of suits but in my humble opinion, it comes down to Idenix vs Gilead in many actions across many jusidictions and nationalities. Just remember that Idenix is 1/2 French, and france just issued idenix the Patent covering 2' Flouro 2' Methyl Nucleosides for the treatment of HCV. Again, not one mention of this in any "Analyst Update" of Gileads future. Why not? If I had skin in Gilead's stock - I sure as heck would want to at least be informed of possible risks to the price going forward, however small that is. This is not happening.
 






My other posts are coming once they are "reviewed" by café pharma. I do hope these are informative even if you completely disagree. Heck, even I don't agree with everything my wife or best friends always say, but I always give their thoughts considerate attention. Lets learn together.
 






Anonymous said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Everything in the HCV space is unprecedented. When was the last time a drug launched at (what probably will be) the #1 spot? When was the last time humans have really "cured" a virus with an antiviral?

I think Sovaldi sales will accelerate (VA just added to their formulary in April). Global sales will start to take off (> 90% of Q1 sales were US sales). I think the warehousing effect will "actually" show up when ledipasvir hits later this year. Later GILD will launch 5816, and who knows what else.

Yes there will be competition, but usually PBMs lock out the newer players if #1 follows the PBM's rules. It's because it's tougher for PBMs to jump in front of #1 than it is to keep the new players out of town. Staying with #1 usually means #1's patent expires first too.

But let's face it, medical offices are already doing prior authorizations on nearly every prescription. Competing cures will not change the authorization process. They already have to do the paperwork. I think any and all players will have access to a piece of HCV.

A preferred drug tier won't matter either... a single prescription of any cure will chew through the deductible and hit the max out of pocket in one claim.

There's a lot of talk about paying for treatments... but we are at the bottom of a $70+ billion patent cliff... There's money to go around. The payers ARE anticipating spending some money curing HCV, and after some complaining, they are finding room. (ESRX is making the most noise... and their total Q1 claims are down 18%. Nobody likes complainers... especially patients & doctors wanting cures)

I think 6 weeks vs 4 weeks of treatment would, at the end of the day, be a trivial difference. I think GILD could find a 4 week treatment or less if pressured. Also remember that duration compression leads to per unit cost expansion. GILD is already taking a lot of heat at $1000/pill

Idenix is interesting here... it's definitely caught my attention & will be following all of this. It's not acting like Pharmasset.. perhaps because the field will already be infested with GILD, MRK, ABBV, BMY et al. by the time they're ready to enter.
 






Everything in the HCV space is unprecedented. When was the last time a drug launched at (what probably will be) the #1 spot? When was the last time humans have really "cured" a virus with an antiviral?

OP Here: Totally agree with above statement.

I think Sovaldi sales will accelerate (VA just added to their formulary in April). Global sales will start to take off (> 90% of Q1 sales were US sales). I think the warehousing effect will "actually" show up when ledipasvir hits later this year. Later GILD will launch 5816, and who knows what else.

Totally agree with above statement.


Yes there will be competition, but usually PBMs lock out the newer players if #1 follows the PBM's rules. It's because it's tougher for PBMs to jump in front of #1 than it is to keep the new players out of town.

"Staying with #1 usually means #1's patent expires first too." If nothing comes from the Litigation, then GILD has nothing to worry about here. I believe off the top of my head that Patents expire in 2025 +/-

But let's face it, medical offices are already doing prior authorizations on nearly every prescription. Competing cures will not change the authorization process. They already have to do the paperwork. I think any and all players will have access to a piece of HCV.

Yes, but why would anyone write anything other than Sovaldi combo pill (except the isolated 10-12% that just hate Gilead or like to see more than one company completely dominate the space). The next "player" has to offer something reasonably close in every way or be actually better in some way.

"A preferred drug tier won't matter either... a single prescription of any cure will chew through the deductible and hit the max out of pocket in one claim. "

agreed

There's a lot of talk about paying for treatments... but we are at the bottom of a $70+ billion patent cliff... There's money to go around. The payers ARE anticipating spending some money curing HCV, and after some complaining, they are finding room. (ESRX is making the most noise... and their total Q1 claims are down 18%. Nobody likes complainers... especially patients & doctors wanting cures)

agreed, but this is Really going to make a significant dent in earnings of Payers and "stay above radar screen" (which isn't always the best thing) if things go like we think.

I think 6 weeks vs 4 weeks of treatment would, at the end of the day, be a trivial difference. I think GILD could find a 4 week treatment or less if pressured. Also remember that duration compression leads to per unit cost expansion. GILD is already taking a lot of heat at $1000/pill

I agree that a 6 week treatment is not as good as a 28 day cure (Psychologically and clinically) I am not sure it will be that easy for anyone to get a 4 week cure. it still must be proven. Virologists,only months ago, argued that it was impossible to get under an 8 week cure...EVER! (It would take at least that long for the body to degradate existing virons even after a theoretical 100% shut down of new virons was initiated...Or so was argued by very credible virologists)

Idenix is interesting here... it's definitely caught my attention & will be following all of this. It's not acting like Pharmasset.. perhaps because the field will already be infested with GILD, MRK, ABBV, BMY et al. by the time they're ready to enter.

Yes, it is. Gives all of us a chance to make some money....(if things go there way)
 






"perhaps because the field will already be infested with GILD, MRK, ABBV, BMY et al. by the time they're ready to enter."

last point - and who is ABBV and BMY again? Does anyone really think they will be used - NOT!

ABBV has a chance with their second generation - but even that will be obsolete if a triple DAA regimen produces a one pill, Pan cure in 28 days ( which I think is only possible when anchored by a NUC). My thoughts have been for years that if a company doesn't have a NUC, then they might as well not even bother. Thoughts?
 






http://marshallip.com/media/pnc/3/media.723.pdf

Idenix must prove it conceived the nucleosides prior to Gilead and that Idenix was diligent in reducing the invention to practice from a period just before Gilead’s December 2002 date up until the date Idenix actually made the nucleosides or up until 2 June 2008, the date the USPTO has now concluded that Idenix filed an application satisfactorily describing the nucleosides, Patel explained. Five years is an incredibly long period of time to show diligence for an invention like this, he said. Lawrence Green, a shareholder with Boston IP law firm Wolf,. Greenfield & Sacks, agreed, indicating the demonstration of reduction to practice requires daily activity. Idenix does not sound like it has good evidence for this, Green said, adding he has never seen a party successfully provide sufficient evidence for
such a long time duration.

Idenix also did not claim to make the product any earlier than 27 June 2003, which is after Gilead’s presumptive invention date, so “that also does not bode well” for Idenix in view of the USPTO's decision, Patel said. It is not impossible, “but I would be shocked if [Idenix] was able to win on priority of invention if it also must establish it was diligent over a five year period” he said.
 






Anonymous said:
http://marshallip.com/media/pnc/3/media.723.pdf

Idenix must prove it conceived the nucleosides prior to Gilead and that Idenix was diligent in reducing the invention to practice from a period just before Gilead’s December 2002 date up until the date Idenix actually made the nucleosides or up until 2 June 2008, the date the USPTO has now concluded that Idenix filed an application satisfactorily describing the nucleosides, Patel explained. Five years is an incredibly long period of time to show diligence for an invention like this, he said. Lawrence Green, a shareholder with Boston IP law firm Wolf,. Greenfield & Sacks, agreed, indicating the demonstration of reduction to practice requires daily activity. Idenix does not sound like it has good evidence for this, Green said, adding he has never seen a party successfully provide sufficient evidence for
such a long time duration.

Idenix also did not claim to make the product any earlier than 27 June 2003, which is after Gilead’s presumptive invention date, so “that also does not bode well” for Idenix in view of the USPTO's decision, Patel said. It is not impossible, “but I would be shocked if [Idenix] was able to win on priority of invention if it also must establish it was diligent over a five year period” he said.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with this document. "reduction to practice requires daily activity" this is why Team Clark actually had graphs of every employees daily schedule for years trying to show that they did not work on "reducing to practice" diligently. It worked in the first Interference - which I explained earlier, is not the trial which will determine if Gilead infringed on the patents and remember, it was only one court (3 judges) in the USA that made this decision in the first trial. Idenix lost because they were not allowed to "use" their earlier patents and patent applications. This will be appealed. They do show diligence - just not every single day. The reason: They weren't actually interested in the 2' Flouro 2' Methyl; This was more of a back-up. Remember the whole FIAU disaster 10 years earlier from the time involved here; for more info I suggest googling the structure of FIAU; then read: The Cure that Killed
FIAU destroyed a deadly virus. Then it began to destroy patients.
By Larry Thompson|Tuesday, March 01, 1994

They were sensitive of any Flouro in the Up or down spot AND they really didn't need it. The Hydroxyl works as good or better:

reference:

Rationale for the 2’ & 3’ substituted Nucleosides
HCV is a small, enveloped virus in the Flaviviridae family, With a positive single-stranded RNA genome of 9.6 kb Within the nucleocapsid. The genome contains a single open reading frame (ORF) encoding a polyprotein of just over 3,000 amino acids, which is cleaved to generate the mature structural and nonstructural viral proteins. ORF is ranked by 5‘ and 3‘ non-translated regions (NTRs) of a few hundred nucleotides in length, Which are important for RNA translation and replication. The translated polyprotein con tains the structural core (C) and envelope proteins (El, E2, p7) at the N-terminus, followed by the nonstructural proteins (NS2, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5A, NS5B). The mature structural proteins are generated via cleavage by the host signal peptidase. The junction between NS2 and NS3 is auto catalytically cleaved by the NS2/NS3 protease, while the remaining four junctions are cleaved by the N-terminal serine protease domain of NS3 complexed With NS4A. The NS3 protein also contains the NTP-dependent helicase activity which unwinds duplex RNA during replication. The NS5B protein possesses RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RDRP) activity, which is essential for viral replication. It is emphasized here that, unlike HBV or HIV, no DNA is involved in the replication of HCV. Recently in in vitro experiments using NS5B, substrate specificity for HCV RDRP Was studied using guanosine 5‘-monophosphate (GMP), 5‘-diphosphate (GDP), 5‘-triphosphate (GTP) and the 5‘-triphosphate of 2‘-deoxy and 2‘, 3‘-dideoxyguanosine (dGTP and ddGTP, respectively). The authors claimed that HCV-RDRP has a strict specificity for ribonucleoside 5‘-triphosphates and requires the 2‘- and 3‘—OH groups. Their experiments suggest that the presence of 2‘- and 3‘-substituents Would be the prerequisite for nucleoside 5‘-triphosphates to interact With HCV-RDRP and to act as substrates or inhibitors. The present invention on the development of anti-HCV agents is based on this rationale.

Plus this quote from earlier study basically showed no difference between 2' Flouro or 2' Hydoxyl:

The inhibitory activity of the 5 triphosphate form PSI-6130 (PSI-6130-TP) against the RdRp activity of NS5B was exam- ined by using both GT-1b (NS5B570-BK and NS5B570-Con1) and GT-1a (NS5B570-H77) recombinant enzymes (Table 2). PSI-6130-TP exhibited equivalent levels of potency against the BK, Con1, and H77 NS5B polymerases (Table 2), based on IC50 values and inhibition constants (Ki). The inhibitory activ- ity of PSI-6130-TP in the NS5B-dependent RNA synthesis assay was comparable to the inhibitory activity of NM107-TP within assay variability limits.

One had the Flouro and the other the hydroxl
 






Essentially, Idenix was patenting the 2' Methyl. Everything else listed was trying to "patent around" this main mechanism of action.

They never claimed to own the "structure of matter" patent.

I will quote from team Idenix response from a Order to show cause as why not to be estoppled" :

As to the first issue, judgment should not be entered against Storer based on the doctrine
of interference estoppel because the doctrine is inapplicable where, as here, the involved claims are patentably distinct from the Count of the prior interference. The Patent Office has determined that the Storer involved method of treatment 14 claims are patentably distinct from compound claims having the same subject matter as the Count in the ’871 interference. Moreover, interference estoppel should apply only where the findings in the prior interference are unchallenged. Here, the Storer real parties in interest have challenged the Board’s decisionsin the ’871 interference pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146.

and again:

The Storer involved claims, which are “method of treatment” claims, are patentably
distinct from the Count of the ’871 interference, which is directed to compounds per se 7 . The
8 Order To Show Cause states that the Storer involved claims “do not appear patentably distinct
9 from the Count of the ’871 interference” but provides no basis for that conclusion. The Patent
10 Office, however, consistently and repeatedly found and explained during prosecution of both the
11 Storer and Clark patents that the Storer and Clark involved method of treatment claims reciting
12 administration of compounds are patentably distinct from claims to those compounds themselves.


and it goes on to say:

For example, during examination of U.S. Application No. 10/608,907 (the Storer
involved application), the patent examiner entered a restriction requirement
distinguishing the compound claims from the claims directed to methods of using the compounds. Ex 1088 (Storer restriction requirement), at 2-4. The examiner found that the process of using the compounds “as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product.” Ex 1088 17 , at 4; MPEP § 806.05(h).1 18 On that basis, the examiner found the method of treatment claims patentably distinct from the compound claims. Likewise, during prosecution of U.S. Application No. 10/828,753
(an application to which the Clark involved application claims priority), the patent examiner also


There is a lot to all of this and I am not an attorney. I cannot say who will win this. If you own Gilead stock, aren't you just a little bit concerned that NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THIS or informing you of the risk here.

I actually think that a settlement could make GILD stock go up, because it would clear up the uncertainty around losing before a Jury and having to pay up to 3 times whatever the award would be. In this case, I believe the award would be close to a large percentage of sales because the Patent at question here is a Key Patent and not a minor one such as seen in High Technology cases where a High Tech device may contain techenology encompassing Hundreds of Patents.

As in all things - I may be Totally off base and be wrong (I'm just not an expert in Law; no less Patent Law)
 


















JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
A telephone conference call was held on May 5, 2014 at approximately 1 2:00 p.m. Present were Thomas E. Friebel, Anthony Insogna, and John Kinton, 2 counsel for Senior Party Richard Storer, Gilles Gosselin, Jean-Perre Sommadossi, 3 and Paola LaColla (“Storer”); Anthony M. Zupcic, Alicia A. Russo, and Daniel S. 4
Interference No. 105,981 Technology Center 1600
2
Glueck, counsel for Junior Party Jeremy Clark (“Clark”); and John G. New, 1 Administrative Patent Judge. 2 The purpose of the conference call was to discuss Storer’s request to defer, 3 until the priority phase, the filing of Storer’s opposition to Clark’s Motion 9, which 4 alleges that Storer’s involved claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) 5 and 103.1 6 Storer argued that the principal reason for its desire to defer filing until the 7 priority phase is that a significant portion of its opposition will address Storer’s 8 conception of its invention and its ensuing diligence through its constructive 9 reduction to practice. Storer asserted that its diligence testimony will involve 10 overseas witnesses, and that bringing them to the United States for two testimonies 11 and cross-examinations would prove unduly burdensome. Storer cites Lazaridus v. 12 Eggleston, Interference No. 105,700, and argued that the balance of factors in the 13 6-factor test favors its request to defer its opposition to the priority phase of the 14 instant interference.2 15
1 Paper No. 156 2 Interference No. 105,700, Paper No. 333
Interference No. 105,981 Technology Center 1600
3
Clark opposes Storer’s request for deferral, pointing out that it is the default 1 procedure to proceed with briefing on an authorized substantive motion and 2 observing that Storer’s request comes two weeks before Storer’s opposition is to be 3 filed and four months after the Board’s Motion Times Order of January 21, 2014 4 (the “Motion Times Order”).3 5 Given that Storer has represented that its proofs antedating and priority 6 proofs are essentially the same, and given the sizeable burden on the parties and 7 the Board in essentially repeating the necessary proofs, Storer’s request to defer 8 filing of its opposition until the priority phase is GRANTED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED
 






Anonymous said:
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
A telephone conference call was held on May 5, 2014 at approximately 1 2:00 p.m. Present were Thomas E. Friebel, Anthony Insogna, and John Kinton, 2 counsel for Senior Party Richard Storer, Gilles Gosselin, Jean-Perre Sommadossi, 3 and Paola LaColla (“Storer”); Anthony M. Zupcic, Alicia A. Russo, and Daniel S. 4
Interference No. 105,981 Technology Center 1600
2
Glueck, counsel for Junior Party Jeremy Clark (“Clark”); and John G. New, 1 Administrative Patent Judge. 2 The purpose of the conference call was to discuss Storer’s request to defer, 3 until the priority phase, the filing of Storer’s opposition to Clark’s Motion 9, which 4 alleges that Storer’s involved claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) 5 and 103.1 6 Storer argued that the principal reason for its desire to defer filing until the 7 priority phase is that a significant portion of its opposition will address Storer’s 8 conception of its invention and its ensuing diligence through its constructive 9 reduction to practice. Storer asserted that its diligence testimony will involve 10 overseas witnesses, and that bringing them to the United States for two testimonies 11 and cross-examinations would prove unduly burdensome. Storer cites Lazaridus v. 12 Eggleston, Interference No. 105,700, and argued that the balance of factors in the 13 6-factor test favors its request to defer its opposition to the priority phase of the 14 instant interference.2 15
1 Paper No. 156 2 Interference No. 105,700, Paper No. 333
Interference No. 105,981 Technology Center 1600
3
Clark opposes Storer’s request for deferral, pointing out that it is the default 1 procedure to proceed with briefing on an authorized substantive motion and 2 observing that Storer’s request comes two weeks before Storer’s opposition is to be 3 filed and four months after the Board’s Motion Times Order of January 21, 2014 4 (the “Motion Times Order”).3 5 Given that Storer has represented that its proofs antedating and priority 6 proofs are essentially the same, and given the sizeable burden on the parties and 7 the Board in essentially repeating the necessary proofs, Storer’s request to defer 8 filing of its opposition until the priority phase is GRANTED. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED
Click to expand...

Its always a good thing when the BPAI grants your motions - To me it suggests a "leaning" towards one side, unlike the last interference where I detected the opposite. We will see...
 






And this is what happened in the Canadian court today (a whole lot of nothing):

MEMORANDUM to Case Management Judge, Tabib, P., from Cynthia Leaver, Ottawa Registry, enclosing copy of Notice of Appeal filed 5-MAY-2014 in Federal Court of Appeal, appealing Order of Mactavish, J. daetd 25-APR-2014. Sent by internal mail on 12-MAY-2014. placed on file on 12-MAY-2014
 






I appreciate very much your thoughtful commentary here. I realize you are trying to push a stock that you own, but I for one appreciate this news about Gilead. I work for Gilead and I have never heard any of this before. A lot of our household savings is currently tied up in Gilead stock and we have prospered immensely. I would like to keep it that way. I still think all this news about IP has years to play out, but I do see Idenix as the only viable "Nuc" competitor on the horizon. Thank You again and keep it coming.
 


















Top Bottom
Back
Quote