% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

CryoLife Inc. Message Board

  • dlhild Sep 23, 2012 11:03 AM Flag

    Medafor, Inc.; HemArrest, Inc.,Plaintiff,vs.Hemostasis, LLC,Defendant.

    IMO this is money well spent by Medafor. IMO another great decision by GS.

    It will be interesting to follow this. If any of this is covered in a public court setting, I may have to see if I could show up and watch. This company appears to be owned by the Spearman Group. Their products are only approved for topical usage, so they have a very limited market. Medafor just doesn't want them infringing on Medafor's patent and further,ore doesn't want them messing up the market place. My guess is that their sales number is small, but that's a guess. Also, it appears that usage by their customers puts their customers in violation of the patent as well. Good bye customers. This appears to be something that falls squarely in the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court of Minnesota. Personally I'm glad to see this filing. The bad thing is that it costs Medafor some more money, but this litigation is a simple patent litigation matter not a complex contract dispute situation. It's a good think Medafor now has the financial capacity to defend its patent. This is actually a plus for the value of CRY's 3.9 million shares of Medafor stock. It may not be a negative for CRY's PerClot situation though, but that showdown will occur after CRY starts selling PerClot in the USA (2014 perhaps). Note that Medafor can't legally stop CRY from going forward with the PerClot FDA approval process, but Medafor can sue them the second they sell $1 of PerClot in the U.S. At least that's the way I understand the situation.

    I'm not an attoney. This is just my opinion based upon my reasoning based upon what I know or think I may know. I may be wrong about things as one can never be sure. Do your own due diligence.

    I think we can "Kiss the Spearman Group's rear end goodbye", before very long.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • There appears not to be any similarity between Medafors Arista and Hemostasis LLC's product or Perclot other than they come from the same raw material? Arista is sold as a molecular sieve under the technology MPH which is made and explained by the maker Magle, while Perclot etc are not using the same mode of action. Also I don't believe you can own a patent for a raw material?
      Given Medafor and GS have lost cases against Starch Medical Inc, James Ji (their one time Chinese Distributor) and David Lang (ex VP International Sales Medafor, then Heading Sales for Starch Medical and now working for Cryolife). And further the disaster that was the Cryolife case GS's track record indicates another misguided fail.
      Medafor shareholders including Cryolife unlikely to see any dividends anytime soon.

      • 1 Reply to nling155
      • dlhild Sep 23, 2012 9:28 PM Flag

        Your response showed you know a significant amount about CRY, Medafor, etc. What is your connection to CRY? James Ji? David Lang? Also, in your opinion what is different between Arista and PerClot? I'm interested in your reasoning on all of this. Thank you.

        From what I can figure out, Hemostasis LLC will be knocked out of the ring pretty quickly. I'm not even sure their product works very well. PerClot does work well, no doubt about that. PerClot may have patent issues though.

        Sentiment: Hold

    • dlhild Sep 23, 2012 2:03 PM Flag

      I think CRY owns 2.4 million shares of Medafor, not the 3.9 million I stated above.

11.52-0.03(-0.26%)Jun 27 4:02 PMEDT