some of you who follow the pharmaceutical industry: Have you ever seen a compound so mired in patent litigation? Thus far, Gilead faces challenges from Merck, Idenix, and Roche regarding the patent rights to Sofosbuvir/related compounds.There are likely more challenges to GILD after they launch, IMO.
And their only approved drug was apparently derived from JPS former gig at University of Alabama at Birmingham (See Case No. 2:2007cv00101)
Idenix is seeking discovery on Jeremy Clark directly (documents and deposition)...Gilead appears none too happy about it.
Sorry. didn't mean to cause a flair up of your PTSD :) Who knows with the patent stuff--even though I think IDIX is SOL with USTPO interference, the federal case which would likely ensue afterwards is another story. If IDIX is smart, I think they prevail in the end, IMHO. But like I said, who knows????
Onemodalar: Please take comfort that Ron and JP and Ray and the IDIX BOD and their progeny are living the good life (from what I anticipate at your expense)?
Do you even know that the HCV drug is manufactured in the same facilities as the HIV drugs at issue? PSI 7977 was being manufactured for clinical trials prior to Gilead's buying that drug.
I noticed that the company's 10-Q stated:
"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."
If Clark is found to be the owner of the property, how can GILD be so certain that they can obtain a license? It seems to me that if Clark wins, GILD spent $11 B on stolen property.
Gilead (GILD) is not the party in fact in the interference proceeding w/ IDIX...it is an LLC called Gilead Pharmasset (formed when GILD bought Pharmasset). Don't know if this means anything to anybody but...
Perhaps if you keep spreading lies about other companies this will make your beloved ACHN drug perform better in its clinical trials.
I know that Roche has clinical trials with Mericitabine (a di-ester prodrug of PSI-6130) in combination with MRK's PI (boceprevir) but I'm now sure that this is the referenced "surrogate" compound mentioned in the Bloomberg article. Do you have a link to the Roche clinical trial PR mentioned in the Bloomberg article? If Mericitabine is indeed what this Brean Murray Carret & Co. analyst Brian Skorney is referring to, then he is WAAAAAY off base and grossly negligent in his analysis, if you want to call it that. Mericitabine and IDX 184 are not similar in the least bit.
That Bloomberg article reeks. So Roche is developing the same drug as IDX 184? What exactly is the "surrogate" roche drug, anybody know.