Here’s some Kitty Litter – but this time with consequences. Businessweek reports that Lehman Brothers issued a research note concerning a Dutch patent case between Angiotech and Biosensors International Group. Angiotech is suing Biosensors for patent infringement in Holland, alleging that Biosensors has infringed its patent through selling an Axxion-coated stent. Biosensors then issued a press release stating that a Dutch judge had found that its stent didn’t infringe the Angiotech patent.

As a result, Lehman issued a research note on Angiotech’s competitior Conor Medsystems Inc. This note said that "the fact that Biosensors was able to prove non-infringement with a paclitaxel stent increases the likelihood of a positive outcome" for Conor. Conor appears to have challenged the validity of Angiotech's patents for using paclitaxel to coat stents.

In fact, the Dutch court had only issued a preliminary injunction and the case has not yet gone to full trial. This caused Lehman Brothers to issue an embarrassing climb-down stating:
"After clarifying the ruling, it appears to be much less of a positive for (Conor) and much less of a negative for (Angiotech) than we originally thought suggesting today's trading in both names may be over-reactions."
The misinformation appears to have been at least partially responsible for Angiotech shares reaching a 51-week low and Conor shares reaching a 52-week high yesterday afternoon.

The IPKat says that it pays to know your basic civil procedure, not to mention IP law.
KITTY LITTER - WITH CONSEQUENCES KITTY LITTER - WITH CONSEQUENCES Reviewed by Unknown on Thursday, February 02, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.