Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

>Why is Imclone the defendant, and not Sanofi?<

Because IMCL is the one making money on an EGFR antibody. SNY isn’t infringing anything.

If a monetary judgment goes against IMCL, I assume that IMCL will sue (or settle with) SNY for reimbursement of license fees already paid on the patent in question.

>If an upstream patent holder gets the patent yanked does this mean the downstream licensor can have its contractual deals ripped up?<

Maybe. Being a downstream licensee is always a risk factor.

For instance, check out the SEC filings for GPCB. GPCB licensed Satraplatin from SPPI who licensed it from an outfit called Johnson Matthey plc, and hence GPCB’s SEC filings are filled with warnings that SPPI could lose its own rights to Satraplatin, causing ownership of the patent to revert to Johnson Matthey and leaving GPCB in the lurch.

Notwithstanding the above, I continue to think that this whole matter is not especially consequential for IMCL. Some of quotes in the Barron’s article (#msg-12052445) may have been more theatrical than factual.