BioPharma « Terug naar discussie overzicht

Insmed, in de gaten houden

20.047 Posts, Pagina: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 ... 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 » | Laatste

Omlaag ↓

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 16:21

Ze zetten hem weer vakkundig lager met weinig stukjes. De winst van gisteren is al weer weg. Gelukkig nog maar 8 handelsdagen tot aan de rechtzaak. Dan kunnen we weer vuurwerk verwachten.

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 16:29

Mooi 3K erbij op 76 :)

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 16:39

Er is totaal geen handel meer. Slap dagje hoor.

welshterrier 5 6 april 2006 16:39

je moet wel heel veel geduld hebben 1,76 nu...kan het nog lager of zijn we er nu???

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 16:45

We gaan weer lager! Er zijn geen kopen meer.

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 16:47

Misschien is het beter om insmed even niet in de gaten te houden.

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 16:48

Ze kunnen de koers nu omlaag drukken met hele lage aantallen.

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 17:03

quote:
M.A.D.W. schreef:
Ze kunnen de koers nu omlaag drukken met hele lage aantallen.

Wie zijn "ze"?

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 17:08

ik zie hem vandaag nog wel onder de 1,70 komen.

welshterrier 5 6 april 2006 17:13

bijna 14 k in de bied op 1,75

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 17:27

kan nog wel spoken tot 18e...
zie zelf de steun onder de 1.70 wel komne...dan is ie nml erg goedkoop
maar blijft handle, kan twee kanten uit..

feit : eind april meer prs

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 17:42

thomson.finance.lycos.com/lycos/iwatc...

5% vandaag

18% de maand

welshterrier 5 6 april 2006 18:16

Is Legi aan het dumpen, heb hem al de hele week niet op het forum gezien.............

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 18:17

Opvallend: zodra INSM daalt, daalt ook TRCA, en vice versa. Zitten de twee partijen elkaar niet alleen in de rechtbank dwars?

E.

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 18:35

quote:
DoDD666 schreef:
Opvallend: zodra INSM daalt, daalt ook TRCA, en vice versa. Zitten de twee partijen elkaar niet alleen in de rechtbank dwars?

E.

toch men kan zich al eens afvragen,
wie blijft hier maar verkopen tegen die steeds lagere prijzen????

tevens een ongewoon hoog volume voor TRCA

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 18:42

Ik kan eigenlijk nergens een draadje terug vinden waar info valt te lezen mbt die rechtzaak.Heeft de uitspraak van deze rechtzaak grote gevolgen voor èèn van beide partijen?

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 18:49

quote:
ramon72 schreef:
Ik kan eigenlijk nergens een draadje terug vinden waar info valt te lezen mbt die rechtzaak.Heeft de uitspraak van deze rechtzaak grote gevolgen voor èèn van beide partijen?

Dit kan je wellicht helpen!

(...)
On December 20, 2004, Tercica and Genentech filed a complaint against Avecia Limited and us in the United Kingdom at the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court alleging infringement of EP patent No. 571,417, or the ‘417 patent. The ‘417 patent has claims directed to particular uses of a combination of IGFBP-3 and IGF-1. In the complaint, Tercica asked the court for an injunction to restrain allegedly infringing activity, for a declaration that the ‘417 patent is valid and infringed, for an order requiring the delivery or destruction of allegedly infringing articles and materials and for an inquiry into possible economic damages. In May 2005, we filed for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. Our motion for summary judgment was denied and a trial date in this litigation has not been set.

In addition, on December 23, 2004, Genentech and Tercica sued us for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,187,151 and 6,331,414 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. These patents are directed to certain methods of using IGF-1/IGFBP-3 and methods of producing human IGF-1, respectively. On February 16, 2005, Tercica filed an amended complaint, adding an infringement allegation against us with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,528,287, or the ‘287 patent. The claims of the ‘287 patent are directed to DNA encoding BP53 (i.e. IGFBP-3) and recombinant constructs, transformed host cells and methods for using same. Genentech and Tercica claim that the production or use of IPLEX, a complex of rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3, will infringe these patents. We moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and on other grounds. At a hearing on the motion on April 15, 2005, the court granted our motion and dismissed the case with leave for plaintiffs to refile the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed on April 22, 2005 by Genentech and Tercica against us. Among other things, this amended complaint added Celtrix Pharmaceuticals, our wholly-owned subsidiary, as a defendant. We moved to dismiss the portion of the second amended complaint that relates to the ‘287 patent. On June 29, 2005, the Court denied our motion to dismiss. On July 14, 2005, we filed its answer and counterclaims. In the answer and counterclaims, we denied infringement and sought a declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are not infringed, are invalid, and/or are unenforceable. The reply to the counterclaims by Genentech and Tercica was filed on August 5, 2005. On October 17, 2005, Tercica and Genentech filed a third amended complaint adding Insmed Therapeutic Proteins, our wholly-owned subsidiary, as a defendant. The answer and counterclaims in response to the third amended complaint were filed by us on October 27, 2005. Briefing on patent claim construction issues and summary judgment motions is set to be completed by May 5, 2006, with a claim construction hearing scheduled for May 19, 2006. Discovery is ongoing and a trial date is scheduled for November 2006.(...)
yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFil...

En deze,

www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg....
There are three lawsuits going on between TRCA and INSM. I try to provide timelines for those cases below.

The first case is Patent Litigation Case in UK

December 20, 2004, Tercica and Genentech filed a complaint against Avecia Limited and Insmed, Inc. in the United Kingdom at the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court alleging infringement of EP patent No. 571,417 (the ‘417 patent). The ‘417 patent has claims directed to particular uses of a combination of IGFBP-3 and IGF-1. In the complaint, Tercica, Inc. asked the court for an injunction to restrain allegedly infringing activity, for a declaration that the ‘417 patent is valid and infringed, for an order requiring the delivery or destruction of allegedly infringing articles and materials and for an inquiry into possible economic damages.

May 2005, Insmed filed for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.

May 20, 2005, UK Court Denies Insmed’s Summary Judgment on Validity of Patent with Swiss Claim.
Trial date has not been scheduled. Looks like this case is dead for a while.

The second case is Patent Litigation Case in USA (THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA)

December 23, 2004, Genentech and Tercica sued Insmed for infringement of two U.S. Patents 5,187,151 and 6,331,414. These patents are directed to certain methods of using IGF-1/IGFBP-3 and methods of producing human IGF-1, respectively.

February 16, 2005, Tercica filed an amended complaint, adding an infringement allegation against Insmed with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,528,287. The claims of the ‘287 patent are directed to DNA encoding BP53 (i.e. IGFBP-3) and recombinant constructs, transformed host cells and methods for using same. We moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and on other grounds.

April 15, 2005, the court granted Insmed’s motion and dismissed the case with leave for plaintiffs (Tercica) to refile the complaint.

April 22, 2005, Genentech and Tercica filed a Second Amended Complaint against Insmed.

May 27, 2005, Tercica/DNA (plaintiffs) filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking an order barring Insmed, until trial, from making, using or selling the drug called “SomatoKine,” (now known as IPLEX ™ ) with respect to its allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,331,414 and 5,187,151, and requesting that Insmed be required to share any orphan drug exclusivity it obtains with Tercica.

June 10, 2005, Insmed filed its opposition to the motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

June 16, 2005, Tercica/DNA (plaintiffs) withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. The case is now in discovery.

June 29, 2005, Insmed moved to dismiss the portion of the Second Amended Complaint that relates to U.S. Patent No. 5,528,287. The Court denied Insmed’s motion to dismiss.

July 14, 2005, Insmed filed its Answer and Counterclaims. In the Answer and Counterclaims, Insmed denied infringement and seeks a declaratory judgment that the asserted patents are not infringed, are invalid, and/or are unenforceable.

August 5, 2005, Tercica (Plaintiffs’) filed a reply to the Counterclaims.

October 17, 2005, Tercica and Genentech filed a Third Amended Complaint adding Insmed Therapeutic Proteins (ITP) as a Defendant.

October 27, 2005, Insmed filed the Answer and Counterclaims in response to the Third Amended Complaint.

March 8, 2006, Tercica filed a motion to accelerate the trial date. No response from the court yet as of today.

Discovery is ongoing and the trial date is scheduled for November 6, 2006.

The Third case is Unfair Competition in CA. (THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA)

December 6, 2005, Tercica filed a complaint against Insmed for False Advertising and Unfair Competition, Case No. C-05-5027 SBA, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that Insmed made false, misleading and deceptive statements about Increlex and its product. Tercica is seeking monetary and injunctive relief.

December 15, 2005, Tercica fil

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 18:51

quote:
ramon72 schreef:
Ik kan eigenlijk nergens een draadje terug vinden waar info valt te lezen mbt die rechtzaak.Heeft de uitspraak van deze rechtzaak grote gevolgen voor èèn van beide partijen?

...Vervolg...

The Third case is Unfair Competition in CA. (THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA)

December 6, 2005, Tercica filed a complaint against Insmed for False Advertising and Unfair Competition, Case No. C-05-5027 SBA, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that Insmed made false, misleading and deceptive statements about Increlex and its product. Tercica is seeking monetary and injunctive relief.

December 15, 2005, Tercica filed an amended complaint.

January 13, 2006, (Defendant) Insmed filed a Motion to Dismiss the case.

March 13, 2006, TRCA filed a supplement to their response to the INSM’s Motion.

The motion is scheduled to be heard on April 18, 2006.

Geluk, F.

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 18:51

quote:
Markweb4 schreef:
[quote=M.A.D.W.]
Nou moe wat een slap begin van de dag. Staan we weer in de min.

Heb geduld!

is de vaste slogan hier aan het worden;heb geduld;
ondertussen steeds lager

[verwijderd] 6 april 2006 18:53

Bedankt Frederik!

Zal het ff doornemen :)

20.047 Posts, Pagina: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 ... 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 » | Laatste

Aantal posts per pagina: 20 50 100 | Omhoog ↑

Direct naar Forum

Markt vandaag

AEX 946,61 +0,03 +0,00% 18:05


Germany40^	22.481,70	-0,58%
BEL 20	4.396,58	-0,82%
Europe50^	5.487,91	-0,23%
US30^	44.581,40	-0,29%
Nasd100^	22.033,50	+0,06%
US500^	6.110,19	-0,08%
Japan225^	39.026,10	-1,17%
Gold spot	2.887,35	-1,49%
EUR/USD	1,0504	+0,35%
WTI	70,71	-0,70%