Insmed Inc (INSM)

[read_this_n0w]

Appeals Court

``Given the length of time the jury deliberated, we understand that they were dealing with complex issues,'' Insmed Chief Executive Officer Geoffrey Allan said in a statement read by spokeswoman Jody LoMenzo. ``Clearly this was not an easy decision.''

Patent lawsuits over biotechnology patents are ``typically determined by the court of appeals,'' Bunsow said. ``We feel confident that the court of appeals will see the case quite differently.''

In June, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled Insmed infringed one of the three disputed patents. The Richmond, Virginia-based company argued Iplex was researched for more than 20 years and that it was made and approved by regulators with respect for existing patents.

McMahon told the jury during his Nov. 27 summation that Insmed was aware of Genentech's patents and could've licensed the technology to make its Iplex treatment.

Research

``There were paths that they could have trod down, but they didn't,'' McMahon, of McDermott, Will & Emery in Palo Alto, California, told the jury.

Bunsow told jurors his client's Iplex research started long before the patents in the case were issued. Bunsow said Tercica's treatment requires twice as many injections as Insmed's, meaning that, over 10 years, a patient using Increlex will require 3,520 more injections than patients using Insmed's Iplex.

``Why are they worried about us? Because their product isn't as good,'' Bunsow, of Howrey LLP in San Francisco, told jurors.

The case is Genentech Inc. v. Insmed Inc., 04-cv-5429, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland).