This is only for smart people - Not you stupid reps

Quote

Anonymous

Guest
In August 2013, we filed a Request for Interference between our pending U.S. Patent Application No. 11/854,218 and Idenix’s U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600 in the PTO. Idenix’s ‘600 patent includes claims directed to methods of treating HCV with nucleoside compounds similar to those which are involved in currently pending Interference No. 105,871 between Gilead and Idenix which involves our U.S. Patent No. 7,429,472 and Idenix’s Application No. 12/131,868. If the PTO agrees that the Idenix patent and our patent application claim interfering subject matter, a new Interference will be declared to determine who was first to invent the claimed methods of treating HCV. We believe the Board’s determination in the on-going Interference over the Idenix ‘868 patent (that Idenix is not entitled the benefit of any of its earlier application filing dates, including the filing date of Idenix’s ‘600 patent) will be equally applicable to the ‘600 patent, which is the parent of the Idenix ‘868 patent. If we are correct, any claims in the '600 patent that Idenix may believe could be asserted against products we seek to commercialize will be revoked.

Page 47 of your last 10-Q

Your lawyers are preparing for your lose.

"If the PTO agrees that the Idenix patent and our patent application claim interfering subject matter, a new Interference will be declared to determine who was first to invent the claimed methods of treating HCV" It was.... and announced by idenix on 9 Dec.

and

"any of its earlier application filing dates, including the filing date of Idenix’s ‘600 patent"

That's your lawyers protecting your company. They are admitting the obvious. The dates are: Provisional for idenix April 28, 2002, April, 28, 2003 & May 14, 2003 vs May 30, 2003
and The actual filing for Idenix for patent # US 7,608,600 is June 27, 2003 vs April 21 2004 for your patent US 8,415,322.

Sorry guys! Your going down Fast!!!!!!!!
 












Anonymous said:
In August 2013, we filed a Request for Interference between our pending U.S. Patent Application No. 11/854,218 and Idenix’s U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600 in the PTO. Idenix’s ‘600 patent includes claims directed to methods of treating HCV with nucleoside compounds similar to those which are involved in currently pending Interference No. 105,871 between Gilead and Idenix which involves our U.S. Patent No. 7,429,472 and Idenix’s Application No. 12/131,868. If the PTO agrees that the Idenix patent and our patent application claim interfering subject matter, a new Interference will be declared to determine who was first to invent the claimed methods of treating HCV. We believe the Board’s determination in the on-going Interference over the Idenix ‘868 patent (that Idenix is not entitled the benefit of any of its earlier application filing dates, including the filing date of Idenix’s ‘600 patent) will be equally applicable to the ‘600 patent, which is the parent of the Idenix ‘868 patent. If we are correct, any claims in the '600 patent that Idenix may believe could be asserted against products we seek to commercialize will be revoked.

Page 47 of your last 10-Q

Your lawyers are preparing for your lose.

"If the PTO agrees that the Idenix patent and our patent application claim interfering subject matter, a new Interference will be declared to determine who was first to invent the claimed methods of treating HCV" It was.... and announced by idenix on 9 Dec.

and

"any of its earlier application filing dates, including the filing date of Idenix’s ‘600 patent"

That's your lawyers protecting your company. They are admitting the obvious. The dates are: Provisional for idenix April 28, 2002, April, 28, 2003 & May 14, 2003 vs May 30, 2003
and The actual filing for Idenix for patent # US 7,608,600 is June 27, 2003 vs April 21 2004 for your patent US 8,415,322.

Sorry guys! Your going down Fast!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

The air is getting awful thin in Mom's basement
 






Ok so why don't you corner the market and buy all the IDX you can get. Why share with us stupid reps? According to you the more we sell now the more you will get when it is all settled. I am not sure why you feel the need to blubber on. I wish i was a smart as you. You will be the envy of everyone when you come back and say i told you so. I bet you have a beautiful head of hair.
 






Anonymous said:
Ok so why don't you corner the market and buy all the IDX you can get. Why share with us stupid reps? According to you the more we sell now the more you will get when it is all settled. I am not sure why you feel the need to blubber on. I wish i was a smart as you. You will be the envy of everyone when you come back and say i told you so. I bet you have a beautiful head of hair.
Click to expand...

Just trying to help.Thanks for not being as vindictive as you could have been. I tried to work for your company. I just wasn't good enough. That's OK, everyone cant be the superstar. I have no beef with you or any other rep. My beef is with your company. Again, not trying to pick a fight with my fellow reps.
 






Anonymous said:
The air is getting awful thin in Mom's basement
Click to expand...

One more thing. At trial they will ask Idenix why they did not have a "reduction to practice" with their patents. The know the answer. Do you want to know? The answer is FIAU. google it and you will see. also let me share one more patent # (hold while I look it up...WO 99/43691 25 Feb 1999 titled 2' flouronucleosides ) Hope it helps you and your kids.
 






Anonymous said:
One more thing. At trial they will ask Idenix why they did not have a "reduction to practice" with their patents. The know the answer. Do you want to know? The answer is FIAU. google it and you will see. also let me share one more patent # (hold while I look it up...WO 99/43691 25 Feb 1999 titled 2' flouronucleosides ) Hope it helps you and your kids.
Click to expand...

If you really invented first ...How come no reduction to practice?
Answer: FIAU. It was killing people only 10 years earlier and the only real change would have been the addition of a methyl group on the 2" location. I can hear idenix say " we got it patented - I think we will go slow on that one. We will put that combination at the back of the line . After all, we own the patents. I think we will focus on targets that will probably not kill people as often"

if idenix would have said that at the time... I would have applauded them. They would be proven incorrect. But their rationale was the most careful and respectful of human life. What did VRUS do? they stole the patents and rushed into VERY RISKY RESEARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just google the story of FIAU and compare the molecule to SOF (without the prodrug portion - that is meaningless in this patent challenge anyway) Less
 






Meanwhile nothing has happened because nothing is going to happen. Go back to mom's basement and watch pokemon. None of your predictions have come true. You're worthless and not very smart. So back to playing xbox, you're probably better at it
 






Anonymous said:
Meanwhile nothing has happened because nothing is going to happen. Go back to mom's basement and watch pokemon. None of your predictions have come true. You're worthless and not very smart. So back to playing xbox, you're probably better at it
Click to expand...

and what are you good at? selling a drug that can sell itself? go home and don't bother, cause it will sell without your puny, futile, efforts to look and feel like you are doing something productive. What do you talk about? Your baseball/football on the weekend or your honed skills in selling FIAU (without the 2' methyl of course). Just stop it!
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote