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

Quote
Anonymous said:
if patent litigation turns bad for Gilead, the penalty is a small royalty. Gilead won't have to forfeit all Sovaldi sales times 3 as it seems to be suggested by OP.

This will take years to resolve. Good luck to Idenix because it's going to be expensive
Click to expand...

Nope / Your team is about to have your Patent disqualified through "Fraud" or the correct term is "Inequitable Conduct". Try to keep up, OK!

Yes, it will take a while to play out.
 






The evidence for this charge came out recently in the Canadian Trial with testimony from Michael Otto, MD (Pharmasett's former Chief Scientific Officer) and Dr. Lieven Stuyver (the other "inventor" of the Key Patent). You know, the guy who was removed from C1 and C2 by "Dr. Schinazi who's anger at Dr Stuyver's decision to leave the employ of Pharmaset caused Dr. Schinazi to remove Dr. Stuyver's name as an inventor on the provisional application that led to the Clark patents or to omit Dr. Stuyver as a named inventor on the Clark patents.


You really have to be brave to keep holding GILD stock, especially as short interest is at an historic high of almost 100 million shares.

Just pretend that none of this is real. That may help.
 






Anonymous said:
if patent litigation turns bad for Gilead, the penalty is a small royalty. Gilead won't have to forfeit all Sovaldi sales times 3 as it seems to be suggested by OP.

This will take years to resolve. Good luck to Idenix because it's going to be expensive
Click to expand...

I actually agree with the OP here, I doubt they get all sales but the patent at play here is a material patent. I say the award would be 25-40% of net sales. This however, would only apply to the sales in the US as we are talking about US code here. 35 U.S.C. S 284 could apply here which if enforced would bankrupt the company. It would go to the supreme court due to the nature and size and potential harm to the innocent Gilead employees. I truly doubt we get near this at all. My guess is a settlement as we get close to a jury trial or if Gilead feels that continuation of the current 981 litigation would endanger the company to Section 102(f) which is based on improper inventorship/derivation; or the patentability of all of Clark's involved claims for inequitable conduct.

The OP is not an attorney - I am.
 






Anonymous said:
I actually agree with the OP here, I doubt they get all sales but the patent at play here is a material patent. I say the award would be 25-40% of net sales. This however, would only apply to the sales in the US as we are talking about US code here. 35 U.S.C. S 284 could apply here which if enforced would bankrupt the company. It would go to the supreme court due to the nature and size and potential harm to the innocent Gilead employees. I truly doubt we get near this at all. My guess is a settlement as we get close to a jury trial or if Gilead feels that continuation of the current 981 litigation would endanger the company to Section 102(f) which is based on improper inventorship/derivation; or the patentability of all of Clark's involved claims for inequitable conduct.

The OP is not an attorney - I am.
Click to expand...

You're an attorney and you're on here, that's the sadest thing I've read on this thread
 












So, can you ballpark for us Idenix's chances of winning this thing? Or at least getting a settlement. I really can not follow all of the above court lingo. Thank You in advance.

By the way, why are you on a Rep Site anyways?
 












Anonymous said:
You really have to be brave to keep holding GILD stock, especially as short interest is at an historic high of almost 100 million shares.
Click to expand...

..........um

19 million shares of IDIX are short out of total 150 million shares (12.7%)
97 million shares of GILD are short out of total of 1.54 billion shares (6.3%)
 












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

In this article, all the patent attorneys unanimously agree that Gilead will likely prevail. Have fun hanging on to your Idenix shares. I hope 21437 doesn't end up like all of Idenix's other nucs... in the toilet

Go eat some Cereal and please return to your mom's basement
Click to expand...

Its getting a little repetitive don't ya think with that " cereal in your momma's basement" line.

Hope ya still have a job in about 1.5 years (Spoiler alert....you better start looking now)
 






Anonymous said:
..........um

19 million shares of IDIX are short out of total 150 million shares (12.7%)
97 million shares of GILD are short out of total of 1.54 billion shares (6.3%)
Click to expand...

Um... for an established company: Your comparison actually proves my point. Do not hold your breath because each day the short interest in GILD climbs very aggressively.
 






Anonymous said:
So, can you ballpark for us Idenix's chances of winning this thing? Or at least getting a settlement. I really can not follow all of the above court lingo. Thank You in advance.

By the way, why are you on a Rep Site anyways?
Click to expand...

This site is for reps and those that actually work for the companies, it's truly sad that you keep posting all this over and over again. I just want to get back to the normal..... I'll sum up your next couple of posts.....

Gilead in trouble, attorney this, patent that, its dooms day, post some court documents, post more really long court documents, reply to my own post about how gilead is in trouble..we're in denial... Cut and paste the top portion over and over again.

Check and check

You're welcome I just saved us all a lot of time....
 






Anonymous said:
This site is for reps and those that actually work for the companies, it's truly sad that you keep posting all this over and over again. I just want to get back to the normal..... I'll sum up your next couple of posts.....

Gilead in trouble, attorney this, patent that, its dooms day, post some court documents, post more really long court documents, reply to my own post about how gilead is in trouble..we're in denial... Cut and paste the top portion over and over again.

Check and check

You're welcome I just saved us all a lot of time....
Click to expand...

OK, lets give a rest until something more significant happens. The two companies (Idenix and Pharmasett) are eternally connected and always will be. Your company saw fit to get into a squabble that they truly should have just stayed away from. Now it is Idenix and Gilead that will be forever intertwined. If you are tired of it, I suggest you quit and go join another company...it's not going away. Not now - not ever.
 






I strongly disagree. Idenix is a Know-Nothing Hack of a company who cannot manage its way out of a public restroom, no less get a drug on the market. Whoever, and I mean anyone who buys even one share of this POS company needs to have their head examined. Their Nuc/Pan-NS5a combo going into phase 2 trials will flop on its face and never see the light of day. It will never compete against SOF/5816- - - NEVER!
 






Anonymous said:
I strongly disagree. Idenix is a Know-Nothing Hack of a company who cannot manage its way out of a public restroom, no less get a drug on the market. Whoever, and I mean anyone who buys even one share of this POS company needs to have their head examined. Their Nuc/Pan-NS5a combo going into phase 2 trials will flop on its face and never see the light of day. It will never compete against SOF/5816- - - NEVER!
Click to expand...

Don't hold anything back now. Tell us what you really think.
 






Anonymous said:
CONTINUED....
We are not persuaded by Clark’s arguments. As an initial matter, Clark’s citing of Dawson is inapposite, as Dawson did not address a situation in which a § 146 action had been filed subsequent to a decision of the Board. Rather, the Dawson panel stated that if, following the panel’s decision:
[A] reissue application is filed, the Examiner will undertake an examination of that reissue application. 35 U.S.C. § 131. If in the opinion of the Examiner, a rejection based on Deckler is appropriate, the Examiner is free to make the rejection notwithstanding any attempt by Dawson in the motion conceding priority to preempt action by the Examiner. 35 U.S.C. § 132. When a judgment is entered in an interference, the estoppel provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.127(a) become applicable. As the Board indicated in Kaufman v. Talieh, Interference 105,233, Paper 23, page 2 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. Nov. 19, 2004) (Exhibit 1003), reservations made in concessions of priority do “not negate the effects of 37 CFR § 41.127 […] regarding interference estoppel.”

Dawson, p. 5, ll. 5-15. Dawson thus addresses whether the Examiner may apply estoppel in the examination of a reissue application after a final decision of the Board. Id. The issue that Clark has brought before the panel for rehearing is whether a judgment of the Board under Bd.R. 127(a)(1) in a first interference invokes Deckler-type estoppel or interference estoppel (issue preclusion) in a second, related interference, when a § 146 action has been filed in the first interference. Dawson does not address this issue at all; no § 146 action was filed subsequent to the judgment, and the Board’s ruling with respect to the Examiner’s possible finding of estoppel in a subsequent reissue examination, is not relevant to the question before the panel.

decision from precluding certain issues…; a judgment by an agency can have preclusive effect in subsequent lawsuits if the parties had a ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate’ and the agency rendered the decision while acting in a ‘judicial capacity.’” Abbott GMBH & Co., KG v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc., 870 F.Supp.2d 206, 221 (D. Mass.,2012) (quoting United States v. Utah Constr. & Min. Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966)). When those requirements are fulfilled, the agency judgment will ordinarily have preclusive effect, provided that the prerequisites for preclusion outlined in Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. v. El Dia, Inc., 490 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2007) are present. Abbott, 870 F.Supp.2d at 221 (citing Global NAPs, Inc. v. Massachusetts Dep’t of Telecomm. & Energy, 427 F.3d 34, 14 44 (1st Cir.2005); Aunyx Corp. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 978 F.2d 3, 7 (1st Cir.1992). The Ramallo test states that the decision of one tribunal precludes re- litigation of the same issue in a subsequent lawsuit if “(1) the issue sought to be precluded in the later action is the same as that involved in the earlier action; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was determined by a valid and binding final judgment; and (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the judgment.” Ramallo, 490 F.3d at 90

I will skip now to the end...

We consequently conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, a judgment of the Board under Bd.R. 127(a)(1) is not a judgment sufficiently final to invoke an estoppel. Clark’s request for rehearing is granted to the extent that we have considered its arguments, but its request that we reverse the decision of the administrative patent judge is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED



THIS IS THE DECISION THAT I WAS WAITING FOR: IN MY HUMBLE OPINION IT SHOWS US WHO WILL WIN THE SECOND INTERFERENCE (IDENIX). THEY WILL MAINTAIN SENIOR POSITION IN THIS INTERFERENCE AND THUS BE "ALLOWED" TO USE THEIR EARLIER DATED PATENTS.
Click to expand...

This just in, no one reads a post longer than 3 sentences, but if you want I can put a bullet in your head and put you out of your miserable existence. Stop posting Idenix non-sense or I WILL hunt you down and take you out.
 


















Top Bottom
Back
Quote