Insmed Inc (INSM)

[ED20332]

Really
by: rehdvm2004 03/18/06 04:51 pm
Msg: 78336 of 78366

Patent law is not predicated on Napoleonic Law and legal hypotheses, per se. Adversarial arguments without support of technical facts will not be considered credible. There have been several patent attorneys on this board who have commented on some of these methods of review. Fact - INSM is a different substance (two antibodies linked by a biochemical bridge or "platform", aka "sandwiched" antibodies. Fact Iplex is a SID (single dose per day drug) and TRCA must be given BID (twice per day). Fact - Iplex has no associated hypoglycemia, which mimics low blood sugar or an overdose of insulin. Iplex has no associated hypoglycemia. Fact - the two antibodies working together have a different mechanismof action in the body. Does anybody really believe the second antibody is just added for ballast?!? Fact - INSM is rated as a more credible, scientifically sound company than TCRA. This pissing contest parallels the Genetics Institute-Amgen war of the mid 1980s. The judge recognized the difference right away and suggested to both parties that they cross license and just make the stuff. The medical profession will determine which product was better by results and demand. The same thing is going to happen here. Apples and oranges, different mechansims of action, differences, differences, differences. Bashers go ahead and make fools of yourselves. INSM would appeal any unjust, strong arm verdict with merit. Judges usually do not like to appear to be total fools. The differences and merits are going to come to light somewhere in the system. Lets see what transpires and let everyone's gums rest until the hearing.

Otherwise it is a waste of electrons and the bashers are just boring.