Well - Stem has been dogging CUR every step of the way with suit after suit. Last real decision that I know of was in 2009 - when USPTO judged two of Stems patent infringement claims to be invalid.(U.S. Patent Nos. 6,294,346 and 7,101,709). Here is a different version than Stems. Also - the amendments that stem had to do on their above patents can still be accessed as public info at uspto. Those amendments really do seem to render Stems claims as invalid - but the courts will have final say. Investment community on the whole seems to be unworried.
http://www.stemcellresearchnews.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=1683&print=yes (2009) "In its statement, Neuralstem offered its version of the history of the patent dispute and of the meaning of the USPTO’s May 13 decision: “... StemCells’ assertion that only some of the claims in the ‘346 and ‘709 patents were amended is untrue. As the publicly available information with the PTO clearly shows, all of the claims in those two patents were amended. “... Contrary to StemCells’ statement, we believe the numerous substantial amendments made by StemCells to get these two patents allowed completely destroy any basis for their assertions of infringement by Neuralstem. “... The PTO’s review was limited to the issues in the reexamination and does not mean that StemCells’ patents cannot be invalidated in any litigation proceeding. “... We believe that any attempt by StemCells to continue their baseless law suit will be unsuccessful, since Neuralstem does not infringe upon any of the significantly modified claims that StemCells salvaged in the reexamination process. “... StemCells’ summary of the litigation between the parties is both inaccurate and incomplete. It fails to note that Neuralstem moved to reopen the 2006 litigation last year after two of the patents came out of reexamination and that StemCells vigorously fought to keep that case closed. “... Neuralstem initiated the litigation in 2008, not StemCells, when it filed a declaratory judgment action against two StemCells patents on May 7, 2008 asserting that StemCells’ patents were invalid, not-infringed and unenforceable because of inequitable conduct. StemCells moved to dismiss Neuralstem’s declaratory judgment action and failed, which is why its second-filed lawsuit from California was eventually transferred to Maryland. “... We would again note that the PTO upheld the patentability of Neuralstem’s core technology in May, 2006, in response to a challenge from StemCells. Our patents are not being challenged in the PTO or in any of the suits with StemCells.”
Here is what Aegis had to say in their 12/10/2012 write-up: "Legal Risk. Neuralstem has sued StemCells, Inc., StemCells California, Inc.,(collectively ?StemCells?) and Neurospheres Holding Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (the ?505 patent?), which was exclusively licensed to the Plaintiffs, is invalid and unenforceable. This case has been consolidated with the suit that StemCells filed in 2006 against Neuralstem, alleging that Neuralstem has been infringing on four patents owned by or exclusively licensed to StemCells. Discovery has commenced, and it is not known when, or on what basis, this matter might be concluded. '
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
