Replies to post #3877 on Insmed Inc (INSM)

[theonlyslacker]

rfoable,

Most likely the jury had no idea how much iPlex has been sold since that is not relevent to the discussion of whether or not they infringed the patents. That is why they established ranges.

The judge will establish the ongoing/future royalties assuming she does not decide that an injunction is the most appropriate remedy.

Hope this helps. Slacker

[skeptic0]

And Genentech shouldn't have let it sit on the shelf for years and do knothing with it. They provided it to Insmed and now they expect rewards. What a joke! Big Boy sits there and lets liitle guy come up with the real deal. What a legal system we have. All the big phama's can't develop their own products and now they try to screw the little guy.

[Guaranteed Sceptic]

Rfoable,
Yeah, it's good to hear that two out of three will expire soon. I, too, was astonished to learn that the jury's penalty referred to past sales; I couldn't believe people were serious when they were quoting the Lehman info on this.
Personally, I don't think that the judge will allow infringement, not just for the four reasons that have been cited here but because of the possibility of use against myotonic muscular dystrophy (MMD). There are currently no treatments for MMD and it's a terrible disease. Who could possibly pass an injunction that (in my not-terribly informed opinion) could destroy the company and end the possibility of them providing a useful treatment for MMD? While Iplex is highly unlikely to cure MMD, it has a decent shot at improving the lives of MMD patients (based on my cursory reading of the abstracts on this and a recent review on the tricodon repeats causing the problem).
Best wishes to all longs,

GS