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.
Re: EU application and the TRCA conf call. They positively didn't want to talk about that. The questioner nailed them on dates and the discrepancy between what Tercica stated and what EMEA had published. TRCA wasn't happy at all and you could tell that they are agitated.
Very telling. Tercica is a pack of liars.
That is what I suspected, but the body of the brief supports Insmed, yet is signed by Anthony Son.
That document is confusing. It is signed by Anthony Son (Atty for Defendents), yet in frontispiece, Anthony Son is with Foley and Lardner who are the plaintiffs and the body of the brief is in favor of Insmed. Huh?
What am I missing?
You lost me on the $15M damages. It was $7.5M.
New trial? Not an option.
Hector...methinks you are bashing. 3 posts in a row and all quite negative. Just enough truth to get by on, but you are a basher and I'll consider all your posts in that light.
I can't imagine an injunction...however, I honestly never imagined this outcome either. But, I think the judge will say - no, the jury has spoken.
No...they receive $7.5 in damages and then a royalty on sales.
north4000 - I have been invested in INSM since CTRX. I don't recall ever hearing the faintest whisper of Pfizer offering to buy Insmed.
A press release would show up on any major stock news group that you are following, such as Yahoo, Google, MSN etc. It will also be posted on the company's website under "news."
The judge has an opportunity to correct her earlier mistake. As Insmed's attys pointed out, a summary judgement is not at all related to a JMOL (as I am learning). SJ involves information presented to a judge alone and in this case it seems that 1) she erred; and 2) additional and compelling information against the validity was presented when Tercica was making its case in chief and Insmed challenged them. JMOL is when (as I understand it) no reasonable jury would find for or against the plaintiff, as the case may be.
I hold out that Insmed may prevail since no judge wants to get overturned on an appeal, and her SJ decision would likely get overturned by the 3 judge panel.
Hmmm, 3 new id's on the board today.
New posters, care to state your intentions?
Thomas S, if you don't see the value in this PR than you clearly have an agenda. I have always thought you had a bit of basher in you...this confirms it to me.
And, by the way, ol' Henry looks pretty sharp to me - top 25 or not. TRCA may prevail on something in this trial, but it won't be much. Their patent argument was always belligerent and wrong. This will clear it all up and INSM will be able to get on with its business. I assume Tercica will continue to sue, but eventually Insmed will be going after them for harrassment.
I hope you enjoy holding on to your TRCA certs. They will make good paper for the bird cage.
This technology cannot, in any way, shape or form, be used for carry-on baggage. The technology involves making the substances (hair gels, etc) radioactive for a short period of time and then analyzing the decay spectrum.
20 years ago, in an earlier part of my career, I visited Westinghouse in PA. They had a prototype of this technology (known as neutron activation analysis) and it was already in beta testing at 3 airports at that time. The upside is there for checked baggage and cargo, but it is complicated and it takes people a bit smarter than the average TSA screener.
Legal issues diminish weekly. The big challenge for Insmed is label expansion and I think that they will achieve that based on the good science they have seen to date. Also, having a refrigerator stable product, and then a room temperature product will be a significant boost and will erase any and all competitive advantage for Increlex.
1. Insmed has probably 50-60 patients in the US right now and that number is growing weekly. There is no way on earth that a court will issue an injunction and halt shipments of meds to these patients. Further, all payers, including the Fed gov't have iPlex as an approved drug for insurance/reimbursement. Injunction isn't going to happen.
2. The patent has been overturned once already - US law is based on precedents - this is a pretty good precedent and the likely outcome in November and beyond.
3. In the unlikely case of the patent being upheld, the court will view it as being used in an INTERMEDIATE step to manufacture a better drug. Therefore, any royalty will be small - IMO less than 5%.
As a note...most royalties are based on gross, not net. Therefore, a 30% royalty is unreasonable and unlikely in the extreme.
Why is donotknowityet getting bandwidth here?
His or her postings reek of manipulation and innuendo, and contribute nothing.
Digger - I totally agree. Tercica was created only to sue Insmed. What a great business plan.
As much as I do not like TRCA, their income for the first quarter is based on payments and reimbursement that came in during 1Q. $85,000 is not unreasonable since not all income would accrue in total within the first quarter...that is, they wouldn't collect all $513K in the same 3 month period.
Rfoable1...thanks, very helpful insight and opinion. The reason I asked is that over the past months IGFBP3 seems to have been getting as much attention as iPlex. And with IP law, it is never clear what is protected and what is public. Insmed's website discusses it as if were a proprietary product (in their words "the company's product candidate.")
I imagine the IP would cover specific uses of IGFBP3, alone and in combination, that Insmed can get successfully through PIII.
Does Insmed "own" all rights to rhIGFBP3? eom
What do you suppose the rationale was at Insmed for filing the Shelf immediately after the CD/warrants were resolved? Part of me hoped that they would want the SP to recover before hitting it again.
The only thing I can think of is that good PR is waiting and they didn't want to hamper that price run up with the news of the shelf.
Long time long...