Friday, July 07, 2006 12:26:04 AM
When I read the decision what I was struck with was the broadness and non-specificness of the patents. As this initial decision is just setting the ground rules, there are lot more twists and turns to come.
My initial impression was TRCA fared much better than INSM- which probably was the case. It appeared from the transcript that TRCA was better prepared than INSM. After having thought about this for most of the day (after being upset and down most of the day), I really feel that this initial decision was a non-event. The real trial is yet to come- nothing was settled here.
In reading the decision, it is quite apparent that the patents were broad as possible and I (not being a lawyer but a physician scientist) can already see many potential weaknesses with the position taken by TRCA. First, the patent for the production of IGF is as broad as can be- including usage of all prokaryotic host (not just E. coli). There are number of very broad application of the process that are mentioned throughout. There were some areas that the judge also had raised some issues for TRCA. The brief summary by Unterberg previously posted also provides some insight. SOme things that bother me about TRCA patent position are 1) the broadness of the patents in regards to production -they cover all prokaryotes (all bacterial hosts), 2) the broadness or nonspecific definition of IGF, fusion protein and etc..., 3) the method they described for IGF production is not unique or novel but a simple standard molecular methodology that is published in any first year college molecular biology textbook- it completely baffles me how this can be considered a patent but what do I know, 4) judge in this case just laid down the groundrules but did not entertain arguments as to why the patents are invalid- I personally see many potential targets for attack by INSM, 5) this case has just started- the trial in November is only the beginning- there will certainly be an appeal- I still believe INSM will prevail in November- I just don't think TRCA can defend the broadness of the patent- INSM will be able to pick and choose and put holes in TRCA defense.
Let's just hope the sales numbers look good and a breakthrough data for MMD od AIDS lipodystrophy data will be presented in the near future.
Good Luck to all longs and hope for better days to come.
My initial impression was TRCA fared much better than INSM- which probably was the case. It appeared from the transcript that TRCA was better prepared than INSM. After having thought about this for most of the day (after being upset and down most of the day), I really feel that this initial decision was a non-event. The real trial is yet to come- nothing was settled here.
In reading the decision, it is quite apparent that the patents were broad as possible and I (not being a lawyer but a physician scientist) can already see many potential weaknesses with the position taken by TRCA. First, the patent for the production of IGF is as broad as can be- including usage of all prokaryotic host (not just E. coli). There are number of very broad application of the process that are mentioned throughout. There were some areas that the judge also had raised some issues for TRCA. The brief summary by Unterberg previously posted also provides some insight. SOme things that bother me about TRCA patent position are 1) the broadness of the patents in regards to production -they cover all prokaryotes (all bacterial hosts), 2) the broadness or nonspecific definition of IGF, fusion protein and etc..., 3) the method they described for IGF production is not unique or novel but a simple standard molecular methodology that is published in any first year college molecular biology textbook- it completely baffles me how this can be considered a patent but what do I know, 4) judge in this case just laid down the groundrules but did not entertain arguments as to why the patents are invalid- I personally see many potential targets for attack by INSM, 5) this case has just started- the trial in November is only the beginning- there will certainly be an appeal- I still believe INSM will prevail in November- I just don't think TRCA can defend the broadness of the patent- INSM will be able to pick and choose and put holes in TRCA defense.
Let's just hope the sales numbers look good and a breakthrough data for MMD od AIDS lipodystrophy data will be presented in the near future.
Good Luck to all longs and hope for better days to come.
Recent INSM News
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/03/2026 08:07:37 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/01/2026 09:10:46 PM
- Form ARS - Annual Report to Security Holders • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/01/2026 08:03:54 PM
- Form DEFA14A - Additional definitive proxy soliciting materials and Rule 14(a)(12) material • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/01/2026 08:02:49 PM
- Form DEF 14A - Other definitive proxy statements • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 04/01/2026 08:01:55 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/31/2026 08:13:26 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/30/2026 09:31:03 PM
- Insmed shares rise after UTHR trial data and Morgan Stanley upgrade • IH Market News • 03/30/2026 03:04:13 PM
- Insmed shares rise on positive results from ARIKAYCE Phase 3b study • IH Market News • 03/23/2026 02:34:12 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/23/2026 11:00:30 AM
- Insmed Announces Positive Topline Results from Phase 3b ENCORE Study of ARIKAYCE® (Amikacin Liposome Inhalation Suspension) in Patients with MAC Lung Disease • PR Newswire (US) • 03/23/2026 11:00:00 AM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/20/2026 08:05:20 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/19/2026 08:57:15 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/05/2026 09:59:55 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/05/2026 09:16:51 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/05/2026 09:15:10 PM
- Insmed Reports Inducement Grants Under NASDAQ Listing Rule 5635(c)(4) • PR Newswire (US) • 03/05/2026 12:00:00 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/27/2026 09:14:51 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/25/2026 09:04:46 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/25/2026 09:04:19 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/24/2026 09:33:16 PM
- Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/23/2026 09:34:10 PM
- Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/19/2026 09:54:09 PM
- Form 10-K - Annual report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item 405] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/19/2026 12:01:18 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 02/19/2026 12:01:05 PM
