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.
Rottenapple,
Go to the link below and enter the CDEx patent application number. Click on the "file wrapper" box and it will give you all the information from initial filing to the latest status.
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.c/6_0_69/.ce/7_...
Sanddollar,
"If Company A has a valid, preceding patent on one element (Element X) of a device (or perhaps one application of several combined and patented elements), can Company B come along and use either Company A's patented Element X or combine it with other elements (their own or off-the-shelf items) for another usage without infringing on Comapny A's patent?"
I think I've posted this before. Here is a simple example which I remember reading a long time ago.
Let's say that Peter invents and patents a platform with four legs attached at the bottom and calls it a chair for sitting.
Along comes Paul and decides it would be more comfortable with a back to rest against and patents the addition of a back to the chair which is an improvement to Peter's basic chair patent.
Along comes Mary and invents the addition of curved rails attached to the legs of the chair with a back so it can be rocked back and forth.
Who has what rights? Peter has the negative right to prevent all others from building his platform with four legs. He cannot improve it with a back or rockers without approval from both Paul and Mary.
Paul cannot manufacture his inventions at all without approval from Peter because he has the basic patent rights on the chair.
Mary's invention includes a chair with a back so she would need approval from both Peter and Paul to manufacture her rocking chair.
Whether this concept has any relevance to the pending suit I don't know. I noticed the suit does not identify which claims are allegedly being infringed upon.
doyourdd, the only problem I see is that patent application specifically states the energy source is x-rays and it does not specifically state the intended use as does the ASD patent.
{i]"A system and method for detecting a substance using x-ray fluorescence is disclosed. The detected substances may be explosives or controlled substances that have a specific chemical fluorescent signature. An energy source transmits an x-ray beam at a target...
I don't see how that application relates to valimed at all. Valimed uses UV. The subsequent patent applications claim the use of UV energy for testing narcotics, explosives and the like. IMHO those applications are the ones intended to provide the protection for Valimed.
You're trying too hard to convince yourself everything is alright. Just relax, what happens will happen regardless of all you do. The outcome of this one is predestined IMO.
Butterfly, just because nursing stations will use Valimed doesn't mean that there will be a Valimned at each nursing station. The same with OR's.
My understanding has been that Valimed will be located in the central pharmacy that compounds the high-risk IV solutions.
Narcotic returns from OR will also be sent there for testing before disposal.
Pookie's post confirms that one unit per hospital is the correct thinking:
"Griffin stated that company projections are based upon one unit for every hospital sold, but estimates (hopes?)that approximately 25% of the participating hospitals would have multiple units."
What time is the meeting?
doyourdd, the Nanodrop was just one example of niche marketing. Nanodrop is more a researchers tool then a clinicians tool. Accordingly, they appear to be sold to research centers and not hospital pharmacies just like ASD's RxSpec is sold to central fill location pharamacies and not hospital pharmacies:
http://www.nanodrop.com/nd-1000-testimonials.html
"Doesn't look like it can do what valimed can do"
LOL, Butterfly you're missing the point about niche marketing. The Nanodrop cannot do what Valimed does and Valimed cannot do what Nanodrop does.
I could show you other fluorometers that are specifically designed for niche applications where they can do the job better than another manufacturer's product (but I think you got it now).
CDEX has specifically designed a fluorometer for ease-of-use in testing compounded solutions and narcotic returns in hospital pharmacies.
CDEx has something very special for that purpose Butterfly.
Yes doyourdd, it is a fluorometer specifically designed to check compounded solutions with a simple test. So far, it looks like the teaching and pediatric hospitals think it's the bomb! LOL
Now, look at the link I posted, the Nanodrop is also specifically designed for a niche market. It is designed to test DNA/RNA samples which are usually very, very small.
Each fluorometer is specifically designed to be best suited for the particular type of testing in each niche market.
Your right RA! LOL
Edited, forgot that was not CDEx related. EOM
Ontheedge,
"Your post should be used to clarify just how different the two techs are."
I think they are different. I think Valimed is better suited for scanning solutions and I think RxSpec is better suited for scanning pills.
Butterfly, Valimed does not use x-rays. EOM
doyourdd, if you do your DD you will also find that many companies manufacture UV fluorescence spectrometers (fluorometers).
Have you read how the Valimed cuvette chamber has been redesigned to hold the new 250 microliter cuvettes which have a more consistent wall thickness (measurement precision)?
Here's a fluorometer that can test a 1 miroliter sample without the use of a cuvette:
http://www.nanodrop.com
There's dozens and dozens of commercially available fluorometers and NIR spectrometers.
LOL! WMFT, make up your mind whether the suit is frivolous and will be dismissed or it's going to go all the way to the U.S supreme court!
"What has happened is a company who cannot get their stuff going, is looking to hitch a ride with a company that is getting their stuff going."
Edge, are talking about ASD? McKesson Pharmacueticals has exclusive marketing rights.
ASD has designed an automated validation system specifically for scanning pills. They have choosen to penetrate a high-end niche market.
McKesson has been placing ASD automated prescription validation systems into central fill location pharmacies way before Valimed got in their first hospital.
CDEx has designed a manual validation system specifically designed to scan compounded solutions. Valimed is cost effective for use in hospital pharmacies. Valimed has a very specific low-end niche market.
No one is hitching a ride with anyone Edge. Each is targeting entirely different market segments using portions of the electromagnetic spectrum best suited for each of their applications IMO.
Will they eventually compete with each other down the road in the same market segment? Probably, best get this over with so they can both get on with business.
"The ValiMed by CDEX solution uses light energy and a library of unique spectral fingerprints to validate drugs in solution. The device validates that the correct drugs in the correct amounts have been added to the dose during the compounding process."
Sassy,
Actually, I think that the people that you and a few others call naysayers have been pretty congenial about the situation.
True, down-and-dirty, "paid bashers" would have taken this opportunity to rip some of the hypsters a new hole for the organics to flow (in you get my drift).
RA, I'm not sure whether WMFT was apologizing for making that post to you or giving you an excuse as to why he did.
Either way he seems to know he was wrong.
Scared,
"...what do you think would happen if this action does have enough merit to go to court, a slow process as you well know.
Will Cdex or Baxa still be allowed to sell or lease the tech before this is resolved? If the action does have legs and Cdex did touch on their tech, then what? Why has Cdex not come out with a pr about the action, I sure think it is a material event, maybe they dont?"
I notice that Raiderman has remained positive and didn't address your "if" question.
In my nonprofessional, speculative opinion, "If" the action has merit the strongest protection that ASD has is in the validation of pills, while the strongest defense for CDEX is in arguing that the use of Valimed for testing liquids does not infringe on the ASD patent.
Note the intended use of Valimed in the latest PR.
I'll have to apply a rigorus dose of Mooniemath to figure that out! LOL
As I recall, the validation equipment sold by Mckesson Pharmaceutical has a redundant way of checking medicine.
This explains the use of the term identifier and not simply "spectral fingerprint" or similar word in the ASD patent.
The system in place at central fill location pharmacies also takes a visual picture of the prescription drug and notes the size, color and shape. This is why ASD also includes "Vis" in their patent claims. The size, shape and color are each unique identifers.
When the system makes the NIR scan of the med the identifier is the same thing as "spectral fingerprint".
RA, I agree 100%. EOM
WMFT,
I happen to be of those that respects RA and believes him to be a man of his word.
This was also part of what you dramatically call his "word" or his "vow".
"In any case, maybe after a time she will ease up and just maybe I will post here again. One never knows."
I think he just may have got an itch after recent events! LOL
doyourdd, I have no idea whether CDEX has sold Valimed units or not.
I don't recall CDEX every using the words "sale" or "customer" in their PR's, it always seems to be "delivery" and "partner".
"Delivery" and "partner" seems appropiate for the hosipitals such as DCH, which apparently participated in the development of signatures, but how many hospitals were involved I haven't a clue.
Rottenapple,
{i]"What if CDEX gets ordered to cease & desist until the matter is settled in court. I think that would spell disaster. Hopefully that won't happen and I believe the odds could be in our favor there. The fact that CDEX, as far as I know, hasn't went into production yet and as far as I know, haven't actually sold any ValiMeds yet, could this be a determining factor on that issue?"
Hopefully? What kind of a "naysayer trying to drag CDEX down" is that?
Ontheedge,
"It was the naysayers who yaked about how CDEX's patent(s) had nothing in them. Now, along comes a suit about patent infringement, and the naysayers jump at running down CDEX, while they forget that they claimed CDEX's patent(s) were nothing."
Sounds like your prodding me for a comment Edgster! LOL
As you well know, my problem with Loch/CDEX has always been the claims of the "revolutionary" XRF technolgy (it appears that CDEx finally dropped the word "revolutionary" from their product description.) and all the BS that transpired thereafter.
Exactly like Rottenapple has expressed.
The only patent I have questioned and opined on is patent application 10/268,678 which is the one based solely on x-ray fluorescence.
Check the records Edge, I have never commented on any other subsequent patent which are all based on UV fluorescence. I haven't even read them all the way through.
My beef has always been with the outrageous claims of the original XRF tech which were allowed to slowly die on the vine and be replaced with a UV tech which they continued to call revolutionary.
I've made the comparison between the old performance claims of the "revolutionary" ELF/EM-1 with the real world performance capabilities of Valimed several times.
I still don't know why the UV tech was called revolutionary and it appears that no one else knew either because no one could every give me an answer. Not even the all knowing dynamic dual- Kidinsight and Ontheedge! LOL
BTW, Have you notice that the new buzz word is "breakthrought".
No glee here WMFT, just posting what I feel is a more reasonable assessment of the situation.
I am not laughing, but you can laugh all you want, even at me.
It appears that up to this point CDEX has been only "delivering" prototype units into pediatric and teaching hospitals. It's still unclear to me if there has been actual sales of units or if CDEX is in some kind of development partnership with the hospitals.
I have adapted a wait and see attitude and have been curious to see how well Baxa will be able to sell/lease units, especially into regular hospitals.
WMFT, I really can't understand why you're laughing about a infringement suit against CDEX. Don't blow this off as trivial, remember that Mckesson is the one that has the exclusive right's to the technology.
Mckesson wanted right's to the ASD tech real bad and it appears as if they want to protect a market which they obviously believe is theirs.
Mckesson started placement of the validation technology at high-end, central fill locations, but must recognize the market potential of low cost units as well.
By: diddy
19 Jan 2005, 01:48 PM EST
Msg. 229610 of 239409
Jump to msg. #
BTW, I have confirmed the following:
1. Spectral fingerprint validation systems are already in operation across America in pharmaceutical central fill locations. This is where orders are filled and meds are sent to hospital pharmacies and chain store outlets such as Walmart.
2. Cardinal Healthcare and McKesson Pharmaceuticals had a bidding war for the systems. McKesson won. Contracts are on-going.
How this plays out with Valimed I have no idea, but it appears that CDEX is intentionally starting at the opposite end of the supply chain. Don't make no sense tryin' to butt heads with the big boys.
diddy
McKesson Corporation is the leading provider of supply, information and care management products and services designed to reduce costs and improve quality across healthcare. McKesson solutions empower healthcare professionals with the tools they need to deliver care more effectively and efficiently. Founded in 1833, with annual revenues of more than $50 billion, McKesson ranks as the 16th largest industrial company in the United States.
Butterfly,
"We have a different technology, This is a non-Issue, We use x-ray they use NIR,IMO ..."
I believe you are wrong, Valimed uses UV and if you review the ASD patent you will see that their claims include the Vis-NIR-UV range.
"...IMO CDEX will not need anyone on these boards..."
I tend to agree with you Butterfly, with the current CDEX BOD and staff I believe that stock promoters will not be required on the message boards.
As Scared has consistently said, future revenues, or the lack thereof will do the talking.
It appears that Valimed stands alone in the niche market of high-risk IV testing. Initial results are just around the corner. However, how well it can penetrate that market won't become clear until at least the end of the year IMO.
Despite a lot of chat board promotion of the other Valimed applications, I view them as nothing more than another "suite of concept products" until prototypes can be evaluated in the field.
Or just isn't being use in that way?
Is that the answer capnmike? It cannot?
Capnmike, if you have talked with all the people that your post suggests then you probably have more knowledge about Valimed than most. So I take it that you agree with Crow's assessment?
Maybe you can educate me on a couple things I've been curious about.
Can the Valimed unit be "two-point calibrated" (calibrated with 2 concentration standards) to create a "calibration curve" so separate signatures don't have to be prepared for different concentrations of the same med?
Along with the "pass" or "fail" response, can it give an actual readout of concentration?
Or is it the KISS marketing strategy?
"About CDEX" - Clarification:
I have been asked by several people the meaning of the following post:
"Ontheedge, I hope you enjoyed your dinner last night. Our mutual friend had some very interesting things to say (about CDEX)- very positive I may add.
Nice talking with you."
The bold added for clarification.
By Crow
"Valimed is an inspection device. You cannot attain quality by nspection. Only by good processes and procedures can one attain quality."
JCAHO Chicago conference focuses on quality and patient safety:
(Excerpts)
In a presentation on improvements that Vanderbilt University Hospital has achieved by implementing aviation practices into its line of communications, given by Richard Clark Jr., Vice president of LifeWings Partners and Rhea Sedon, MD, assistant chief medical officer at Vanderbilkt Medical Group, they said they found that by using avaition's best practices they could improve patient safety and quality of care.
As a former aircraft carrier jet pilot and commercial flight pilot, Clark shared what the aviation industry learned years ago: "No matter how advanced the technological system, if humans are involved error is inevitable. Aviation recognized that 70% of accidents are based on human error in a team setting and that the key to safety is managing error."
His question to the audience was "Can lessons learned from aviation be transferred into healthcare?"
Between 44,000 and 98,000 patients are killed in the U.S. healthcare system annually; the equivalent of one large jumbo jet crashing daily...
...Can healthcare learn from aviation? The answer is an with emphatic "Yes".
Ontheedge, the email you claim I wrote is a fake. I think it would be wise to investigate your source and not make the same mistake that WMFT did.
Thank you.
Ontheedge, I hope you enjoyed your dinner last night. Our mutual friend had some very interesting things to say- very positive I may add.
Nice talking with you.
Sassy, why did your post get deleted, do you know?
Thanks Crow. eom
10 millionth post WAG: 2/18/06, 18:30
10 millionth Post WAG: 2/18/2006, 19:30 eom