Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Conistarz,
I am confused here. You say that two batches are sold.
Does that mean that we have about 300 customers already?
On the other hand couple days ago you said:
Date:6/8/2006 8:30:07 AM
Post #of 2131
Speculation on iPlex patients number...
30+/- patients have prescribed iPlex in the first week of iPlex debut. A salesperson predicts that there could be 90-110 patients by the end of 2Q. They are selling about 3-4 patients a day in average.
------
Either my estimate of 150 patients per batch is incorrect, or the 30 patients in first week + 3-4 patients per day is.
Can you clarify?
Thanks,
Dunno
I agree with your first paragraph and mostly with the first sentence of your second paragraph.
drbio,
You have no manners, and you apprently think that if facts not support your opinion that is too bad for the facts.
You can read the entire order of the judge coinstarz included.
Can you find a single sentence about "baseless case."
I help you. No. there is not there.
The judge found that the claim was improperly constructed;
Tercaica alleged that INSMED made false statements to investors.
The proper claim should have been that INSMED made false claims to customers.
-----
And in fact that is Tercica's claim in the new Virgina case.
Parentsgraete,
Just to repeat: In the new lawsuit Tercica alleges that
INSMED made false statements to potential cusomters, and thus they make a proper claim. This vas not be dismissed on the same base as the California case.
I am not an expert but the chance of INSMED winning on legal fees at this point is slim at best.
Federal courts have jurisdiction over these cases.
The question is venue.
In the patent case it is likely that the California venue was proper, because at least partially it involved activities of Citrix(?) in California.
Even if the venue were not proper at this point INSMED can no longer object. Defendants cannot feel out the courts leanings and chances then decide to object the venue. That would be considered forum shopping and frown on by courts.
---
The false advertising case as refiled I beleive properly in Virgina will be a tough one for Tercica, and even if they win they likely will get compensation than their legal fees.
The likely purpose is to make INDMED much less aggressive in the future in comparing the product. I think they have succeeded in that.
The refiling in Virgina has the unpleasant side effect for Tercica, that although as of May 24. California is proper venue, if Tercica wants sue for newer allleged similar misconduct of INSMED the new lawsuit will likely be consolidated to the current one in Virginia.
The court did not rule that Tercica's lawsuit was meritless,
as INSMED PR claims. That is plain BS. The court found that the venue was improper and that the claim that the alleged false statements were made to investors were not sufficient.
TErcica should have alleged that customers were told false statemenst. That is all.
Jellybean,
This not welcome, this is grade school bullying.
As part of your conspiracy theory you repeat your false
statement that I was a new poster on the boards even though I corrected it, and you could easily check it.
You wrote:
To quote a famous politician "he's entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
I think you should apply that to yourself.
Unless I find real welcome, I really no longer post here.
If I feel like reacting to anything here I will do that in YMB.
It is your loss.
Dunno
For the record let me copy my yahoo posts I got harassed for:
Is this elementary school? My mom tol me not to play with bullies. So I will play with other kids.
Coinstarz, hopefully you are better stock picker, than message board moderator.
bye
Dunno
Re: To skinsurge
by: donotknowityet 06/11/06 06:37 pm
Msg: 105143 of 105311
I understand that physicians are free to prescribe drugs off label.
But in case of expensive drugs like iplex it is important that payers (insurance companies) pay for the off label prescription.
Can you tell what is the usual rules of insurance companies to cover expensive off label prescription, and how do you see that for iplex in the future?
Thanks.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 105134 by skinsurge
Re: To skinsurge
by: donotknowityet 06/11/06 09:22 pm
Msg: 105163 of 105311
Skin,
Thank you. This is helpful.
Dunno
Posted as a reply to: Msg 105146 by skinsurge
Jellybean,
I have shown up about 5 years ago on yahoo.
May be 3 weeks ago on this board.
I think you should relax, and take it easy.
OK?
Dunno
How would the athletes get their hands on the stuff?
I somehow do not think that they would get a prescription on their own name for it.
Metformina, a really old Type-2 diabetes drug is considered weight loss medication by many.
YMI stated before that in case of continuing trial after analysis they will announce that, but nothing more. They will not release any additional information but they do will release the basic info that analysis is done and the trial continue.
There will be no need to make inferences from lack of PR.
I hope that this is clear.
It is not clear to me: How many iplex vial is used by a typical kid per day on the drug?
Thanks.
Dunno
Improved biologic manufacturing methods?
Thanks.
I found this:
Because of recent changes in the law, an existing patent can fall in one of
three categories in terms of its expiration date. If the patent application
was filed after June 7, 1995, the expiration date is 20 years from the date it
was filed. If the application was filed by June 7, 1995 and issued before June
8, 1978, the expiration date is 17 years from issuance. The “best-of-both-
worlds clause” comes into effect if the application was filed by June 7, 1995
and issued after June 7, 1978, in which case the term is the later of 17 years
from issuance or 20 years from filing. These terms are accurate for both
Utility and Plant Patents, Design Patents expire 14 years from the date of
grant.
This information was found at:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/inp03.htm
(URL courtesy of Drmatt’s Comment).
and
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#design
---
So that means the patent will expire 17 years after issuance.
With the current 20 years from filing the patent would have already expired. With the old rule they were lucky that the patent office was slow.
Might be a naive question, but are not patents supposed to expire in 20 years?
It seems to me that there is no wholesaler, retailer, etc. or any
middleman. INSM gets the script and sends the drug to the patients directly.
Given the extremely high short position of rather sophisticated hedge funds, I have no doubt that they would have attempted to manipulate the stock no matter what.
They might not have been as successful with stronger data.
Fundamentals do matter. But not only the fundamentals do.
Most posters in YMB including myself are nonsensical.
Soem are paranoid as well.
But occasionally even the most paranoid and nonsensical people are persecuted.
I do believe that there is manipulation that hurts companies and and their share price long term.
Dew,
I will formulate more directly.
Short term manipulation can change not only the perception about the company, but the VALUE of the company itself.
Especially for a company that needs cash.
In that case short term manipulation or series of short term manipulation will result long term damage to the stock price.
Now whether you call that short-term or long-term manipulation is irrelevant. The effect is long term.
Dunno
Dew,
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!”
I agree.
Soros argues that the B.S. of efficient market hypothesis start by the fact that fair price does not exist as the market valuation reflexively impacts the value of the company.
Incidentally that reflexivity is the strongest for development stage cash trapped biotech as the lifeline of these companies our their shares.
We can add gently to the equation the ego problem of management that sometimes cmakes them reluctant to partner a drug. Combine that with the moral risk that their individual interest and fiduciary duty are in conflict.
As BSR David pointed out we have all seen clear manipulation when after a significant good news price of a stock went down immediately and after that the important development have not resulted in share price rise in long term either.
Given that why do not you believe that sophisticated parties can manipulate long term stock price?
Dunno
I know nothing more about the gentlemen than what is available on the website. My impression is that the lack of pharma experience of the CEo hurt the credibility of the company with regulators, potential partners, etc. The new guy might not be better, but he is more credible and that is crucially important.
Yes. I have a small position.
It is a selfish act. He has a lot of shares.If the company does better with Yakatan, he will have a lot more money.
What are the pending litigations about?
How many? Where?
What are the status?
Thanks.
Dunno