why BSX is not moving up. The previous poster who had all the knowledge as to possible hits BSX could take from patent infringement , I thank you. I was not aware of this. So it seems BSX has the premier stent . It would be sad to think they would be so dinged that patients would miss out on their
products. With MDT and JNJ hitching up regarding the same product, seems the latter two realize the fight at hand. Suzanne
"You are also foolish to believe BSXs market numbers from europe. They are a lie."
League, I've often wondered if BSX selling price in Europe is much lower than Cypher, giving credence to their claim of UNIT dominamce. But I can't seem to find any proof of this other than if JNJ's market share numbers are correct, then market share $ is split essentially equally between Taxus and Cypher in market where then are both available; hence Taxus must be sold significantly cheaper. Why do you say the numnbers from Europe are a lie?
I respectfully, but completely disagree with you on your assessment of the BSX DES patents. They absolutely do not have any significant, valid or broad patents in this field. JNJ and others have been working in this space for 10-12 years. Most of BSX patents will be invalidated by prior work by multiple other companies, including JNJ. Their patents are not even in the ball game with Palmaz & Schatz (truly original pioneering stent design patents that have been upheld and validated all the way to the Supreme Court and back). JNJ will not settle, nor negotiate from this hand of incredible patent strength after battling through litigation on these powerful patents for 9 years (i.e, they are going to take BSX out of the business). That is their goal. You are way too optimistic about BSX chances here. You are also foolish to believe BSXs market numbers from europe. They are a lie. As for the TCT article others brought up, you cannot have a "statistically significant endpoint here," not because Taxus is as good as Cypher (it's not even close) but because with only 77 observations there is not enough statistical "power" to reach a proper p value even though the bad event rate is nearly THREE TIMES HIGHER for Taxus than Cypher (despite much longer lesions ; higher risk) . If I were to ask a patient "Which stent do you want; one with a 12.8% major serious event at 9 months or 5.3%? Which do you think they (or YOU) would choose. There is no comparison. The Reality trial will show, in a large (powered) randomized trial that Taxus really does suck compared to Cypher. Also do not underestimate all of the bad results and experiences that are now accumulating with Taxus in the U.S. (SAT (all over), failure to deliver with successful Cypher delivery in same cases (Cleveland Clinic), stent balloon sticking with emergency bypass (Texas), and coming soon- major problems at overlap sites and diffuse in stent restenosis). Take your profits and smile while you can.
League, I agree there is some risk re: Palmaz infringement fine in 2006. But I don't think its a slam dunk, I think they will settle. Why? BSC has broad base of patents around DES, while they have not been prosocuted yet and therefore they are not as solid, they do have the potential to put everyone else out of the DES business. I forecast they companies will settle on this before the Palmaz infringement case is finalized in 2006. JNJ will trade those potential damages for access back into a market that it appears TAXUS is going to win in the US, just as they did OUS. I respectfully disagree about Cypher, I don't think Cypher sucks, but I do think Taxus wins in 04 and 05.
So, in the spirit of mutual respect, I am curious about your thoughts.
Doctors did not think Taxus is equivalent to Cypher. Most doctors have confirmed that Taxus is better than Cypher and they preferred Taxus. Cordis was attempting to prove that Cypher may be equivalent to Taxus and approximately 40% of doctors have agreed with that. Sincerely,
Not that anyone has shown any proof that BSX limited results to only show those strictly <9 months...
But even if they did, wouldn't it have an equivalent chance of producing profoundly bad results and profoundly good results?