|
|
|
|
||
Re: PGR Decision/the croup"Moving forward, does this set a precedent for future companies covering their intellectual property by just stating the words deuterated within their original patents? We'll have to see, but Concert interest is in unmet needs, that these other companies are not addressing. " I agree with your assessment, but I would add that the PTAB is not the final word on patent validity; it is the US Court system, under Article 3 of the US Constitution. CNCE was fortunate to have the PTAB rule in its favor against the INCY IPR challenge that it does not infringe on INCY's patent. CNCE was aggressive in challenging INCY with the PGR through the PTAB, but worth getting some clarification of the PTAB's position. the croup is correct that this PGR ruling does not impact CNCE in bringing to market the CTP-543 for AA, which has been estimated to have a sales potential of >$500 Million. And because of INCY's collaboration agreement with LLY, it is hand-cuffed from developing an oral version to compete with CNCE. If CNCE is successful in bringing CTP-543 to market, it then has the potential to go after other indications held by INCY & LLY worth over $1 Billion annual sales. So INCY & LLY still have to protect their turf by dealing with CNCE or risk another BP step into the picture with a buyout of CNCE. In conclusion, I would NOT count this PTAB PGR ruling as a set back for CNCE - more like a point of clarification from an Agency - not the Court system. The more important ruling was the IPR challenge CNCE won indicating there is no infringement by CNCE. I don't doubt the Street (HFT algos) will try to shake-out the weak momentum hands on Friday with news of the PGR (due to shareholder ignorance), but it does not change the base case for CNCE. I'm sure there will be a lot of institutions that will be ready to scoop-up any cheap shares they can for the long-term move upward. Red |
return to message board, top of board |