Recent

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

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. Message Board

simp08801 220 posts  |  Last Activity: Mar 27, 2015 8:50 AM Member since: Apr 10, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Um

    by simp08801 Mar 26, 2015 12:20 PM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 27, 2015 8:50 AM Flag

    dear cg

    I am forsaken, but unabashed

    you need to dissect my posts like you did that frog in 9th grade, to truly understand their inner meaning

  • simp08801 by simp08801 Mar 26, 2015 12:20 PM Flag

    The current share price is a remote afterthought in comparison to the impending pre nda meeting with FDA to be held by May 30

    Tock tick

  • lets first make sure we know what they cannot avoid doing

    THEY CANNOT AVOID PAYING THE PREDETERMINED (UPPER SINGLE DIGIT) ROYALTY FEES ON THEIR US KRILL SALES

    and this is effective immediately, starting now

    its now a question of WHO they have to pay the fees to ...

    what they can do is appeal the USPTO decision (they have 60ish days to decide on this) in federal court, which stays their responsibility to pay the royalty fees TO Nept during the appeal

    during the appeal, they must pay the fees to the Court which will hold the fees in escrow pending the final adjudication of the appeal

    if they win their appeal, they get their money back

    if they lose the appeal, Nept gets the money

    so the question is, will they appeal

    there were numerous contested Nept patent provisions in the patent trial ... Neptune needed to only prevail on one and it prevailed on two, to trigger the royalty payments from Aker and Enzy

    the statistical odds (if history be our guide) suggest that the USPTO decision will be upheld on appeal

    but appeals do occur, and post trial judgment settlements also do occur (why? cuz sometimes the patent holder simply needs the cash and is willing to lower the royalty fee to lock in the payment cash flow from the patent violator now and avoid the appeal delay)

    appeal or no appeal, settlement or no settlement? this should be known in 60 days

    but in the meantime, make no mistake, this USPTO patent win was humongo for nept, on many, many levels

    depending on exactly how the math plays out, Nept could become a buyout target, and guess who the buyer might be? it starts with an "A"

    ...

  • Reply to

    Dear Nept shortsllers and former chairman seller

    by simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 6:40 PM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 7:17 PM Flag

    Just one more thing

    You have been very active in the low volume trading for months

    It looked like you convinced yourselves you literally owned the stock trading

    Perhaps you never considered Nept could (and should) win the patent protection case?

    What now will you do after the huge Nept patent win and the easily calculable royalties from aker to flow from it?

    Next up

    Your total miscalc on the Nept sales ramp

    ...

    That will leave an even bigger mark I suspect

  • Reply to

    Dear Nept shortsllers and former chairman seller

    by simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 6:40 PM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 6:57 PM Flag

    One more thing short sellers and former chairman seller

    It was a lottery ticket, you and the longs

    Somebody was gunna win and somebody was gunna lose in this game of chance

    You lost, real big

    The royalties are big

    Thank you

  • It's now official

    You just got killed

    Do you know how to use uspto website?

    Welcome to your horror

    ...

  • Reply to

    throw away your calendars

    by simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 7:31 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 4:42 PM Flag

    I disagree

    If us pro follows law it comes tomorrow

  • Reply to

    not good, IMO

    by simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 8:40 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 12:08 PM Flag

    hw

    we may disagree less than you think

    my energy to fully express the thoughts behind my posts has waned

    I have long believed the fda is unsettled regarding how to handle dsytrophin (my reasons for this should be obvious)

    Friday did nothing to further that ball in my opinion (I did not say it got worse, rather, I said it did not appear to get better)

    yes, obviously, fda can use the 6mwk

    the 6m walk test results started to get noisy after 120 wks

    if we lose d as a surrogate for AA purposes, the usage of the 6mwt is not a no brainer, and becomes less and less of one each time we get new data every 24 weeks, IMO

    in between all the AA hoopla of the last 30 months, this thing may be headed for a full P3

  • Reply to

    throw away your calendars

    by simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 7:31 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 10:54 AM Flag

    The decision has not been released

    Call company ir and ask

    But I suspect you won't ...

  • Reply to

    throw away your calendars

    by simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 7:31 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 10:04 AM Flag

    follow this link thread on the uspto website

    Home /Patents: Application Process /Patent Trial and Appeal Board / Trials

    you will see a "Trial Proceeding Timeline"

    See the following statement:

    "*No more than 12 months" (time period from trial to decision)

    then see asterisk"

    "*Time period set by statute"

  • Reply to

    throw away your calendars

    by simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 7:31 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 9:49 AM Flag

    there is actually a federal law which requires the decision to be issued within one year of the trial

    the USPTO website actually states this as well

    I would link it but Yahoo blocks links for the last few years

    if you go to the uspto website and read the trial process tutorials, and look at the descriptive calendars you will even see asterisks on the final opinion desgnations that expressly indicate the opinions must be issued with 12 months under federal law

    I could find no exceptions

  • Reply to

    not good, IMO

    by simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 8:40 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 9:43 AM Flag

    dear immediate

    I have repeatedly said hoffman is a dystrophin measurement supporter

    his clear problem is with how srpt did it

    as for the rest of your posting to me

    I have two choices

    1. recognize that people can have different views

    2. call your post rubblish

    I am actually choosing door #3

    I believe you are an inter-galactic criminal who has dedicated its (you may not be human) existence to death, imprisonment and injustice

    May God have mercy on your soul

  • simp08801 by simp08801 Mar 23, 2015 8:40 AM Flag

    I have just read 3 of the analyst reports

    The views presented therein do not match the bullishness expressed on this board about friday

    this single quote from Wedbush was a common theme:

    "In our view, there is still a long way to go; we believe a takeaway from the workshop is that at
    present, dystrophin production can be supportive of approval, at best; we do not believe it is validated as a surrogate."

    THIS WAS MY EXACT FEAR ABOUT FRIDAY

    namely, the crack in the foundation of the only realistic basis for which etep could receive FDA AA

  • at this point, all you need to know is that the uspto trial decision is required under federal law to be publicly released by the close of biz tomorrow

    my research indicates that tomorrow should be the day after today

  • the alleged deadline for issuance of the uspto ruling is 5 pm on tuesday, march 24

    but if uspto is on pluto time, all bets are off

  • I am not waking up til Saturday morning

    and I am making believe tomorrow never happened

    because I fear I am going to wish it never happened

    good night and pleasant dreams

  • simp08801 by simp08801 Mar 19, 2015 1:06 PM Flag

    I make this request on behalf of all mullets swimming in the zixsea

    zixi has a 4 handle at the moment

    and last time you said 4.75, the stock shot to that price

    we ask that you please say it again

    thank you

  • Reply to

    JMO

    by simp08801 Mar 19, 2015 8:17 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 19, 2015 1:03 PM Flag

    dear voidmother

    please do not refer to my starfe1 board name at this time

    I have refrained from using that board name of mine currently to hopefully defraud board readers into forgetting that I have previously openly admitted that me and star are the same person

    Thank you for assisting me in my defraudment

    signed, starsimpenterprises

  • Reply to

    JMO

    by simp08801 Mar 19, 2015 8:17 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 19, 2015 10:26 AM Flag

    grey

    the future is uncertain, but the past is locked

    look at the entirety of the past in terms of FDA's ND and srpt interactions

    I do not know how any rational, objective thinking person could not recognize that the ND has to date never gotten comfortable in using dystrophin measurements to validate dystrophin as a surrogate marker for AA consideration

    it is not enough to just yell "crime" bla bla bla

    ND has been hung up on issues of substance

    the fact that others may disagree with its hang ups does not make them any less substantive

    what is the purpose of this meeting?

    to enable the ND to get past its hang ups? ... or to validate them? ...

    take stock of the prior FDA public meetings on dmd related issues during the last 30 months (there have been two)

    did anything positive flow from them or did they actually become more fuel for FDA lunacy?

    the answer is lunacy, as the past record shows

    no way to say for sure, but I suspect that dystrophin is the only realistic AA path for srpt (given the totality of the last 30 months), and bmrn knows this

    the past does not universally predict the future, but its a real good start for the analysis

    and in this instance, the analysis is not bullish in terms of the FDA conducting an event like this, at this time, with these people, on this issue

    all JMO

  • Reply to

    JMO

    by simp08801 Mar 19, 2015 8:17 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Mar 19, 2015 8:45 AM Flag

    immediate

    my comment is a "under the hood" comment

    we see post after post asking "what could bmrn have been thinking when it bought RNA"

    this event, when and by whom it was developed, and the timing of its schedule are quite relevant

    I don't care if there are 5,000 speakers on pro d

    look at the totality of the public evidence to date

    do you think the fda has a problem with dystrophin as a marker? OF COURSE IT DOES FOR GOD'S SAKE!

    BMRN has a bet that goes like this: we already have a P3 that we will mine data from, and our NDA is doing in now, and srpt is going to have to do its P3 and will not have a viable nda for a long time, and our drug will be available for approval quite a bit in front of sprt's drug, and key in our bet is the killing of dystrophin as a surrogate

    I am not saying I agree with it

    but I am saying it is obvious by any objective analysis here

    I will say it again

    I wish the event was never scheduled and nothing good can come from it for srpt

    these continued suggestions that bmrn is clueless, ARE CLUELESS

    bmrn has a plan, a plan that was devised before it bought rna, a plan that fits into today's discussion

    will it work? no clue

    but today's event fits into it for sure

SRPT
13.57+0.50(+3.83%)Mar 27 4:00 PMEDT