Replies to post #142818 on Biotech Values

[mrholty]

So which one is closer to the truth?

The CFO - his statement is definitive. If he is wrong, I can't see how he keeps his job as his credibility is shot.

or the 10Q - Is this the real story or just covering their ass by the legal department. Quite often the 10Q on a solid company can make an investor sick by reading the disclosures.

The follow up question is what is the market giving odds to IDIX/GILD? Then we can determine if we want to play in the gamble.

[pcrutch]

I will have to dig thru the patent applications and talk with a biochem consultant before guessing on this. Need to see some previous case law as well.

Also noticed a former VRUS employee/inventor is suing GILD/VRUS. Guess he didnt get paid well enough in the buyout.

"In March 2012, Jeremy Clark, a former employee of Pharmasset, Inc. (Pharmasset), which we acquired in January 2012, and inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,429,572, filed a demand for arbitration in his lawsuit against Pharmasset and Dr. Raymond Schinazi. Mr. Clark initially filed the lawsuit against Pharmasset and Dr. Schinazi in Alabama District Court in February 2008 seeking to void the assignment provision in his employment agreement and assert ownership of U.S. Patent No. 7,429,572, which claims metabolites of GS-7977 and RG7128. In December 2008, the court ordered a stay of the litigation pending the outcome of an arbitration proceeding required by Mr. Clark's employment agreement. Instead of proceeding with arbitration, Mr. Clark filed two additional lawsuits in September 2009 and June 2010, both of which were subsequently dismissed by the court. In September 2010, Mr. Clark filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the court's December 2008 order which was denied by the court. In December 2011, Mr. Clark filed a motion to appoint a special prosecutor. In February 2012, the Alabama court issued an order requiring Mr. Clark to enter arbitration or risk dismissal of his case. Mr. Clark filed a demand for arbitration in March 2012. We cannot predict the outcome of the arbitration. If Mr. Clark is ultimately found to be the owner of the 7,429,572 patent and it is determined that we have infringed the patent, we may be required to obtain a license from and pay royalties to Mr. Clark to commercialize GS-7977 and RG7128."