|
|
Post by allprofitsaregood on Jul 29, 2014 16:35:00 GMT
According to PACER, a hearing is scheduled for today in the patent lawsuit between Stemcell and Neuralstem. Attached is a copy of an earlier court order that offers a good historical perspective on the case. Is there a patent lawyer on the board who would like to share her/his perspective? |
|
|
|
Post by tradeup on Nov 17, 2014 13:44:15 GMT
lifetechcapital.com/ltc/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/STEM-Update-11-17-14.pdfPatent Infringement Suit Against Neuralstem Scheduled for December: StemCells Inc. ongoing patent infringement lawsuit against Neuralstem (NYSE MKT:CUR) has now completed the discovery phase and the first phase of the bench trial is expected to commence in December 2014. Investors should note that there are no claims of patent infringement against StemCells, Inc. by Neuralstem. StemCells Inc. Patent Infringement and Libel Suits Against Neuralstem (Amex:CUR) In July 2006, StemCells Inc. filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that Neuralstem’s activities violate claims in four of the patents exclusively licensed from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 6,294,346 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for drug screening), U.S. Patent No. 7,101,709 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for screening biological agents), U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells), and U.S. Patent No. 6,497,872 (claiming methods for transplanting human neural stem cells). In May 20 08, StemCells Inc. filed a second patent infringement suit against Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr. In this suit, filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, they allege that Neuralstem’s activities infringe claims in two patents exclusively license from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (claiming composition of matter of human neural stem cells derived from any source material) and U.S. Patent No. 7,115,418 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells). In addition, they allege various state law causes of action against Neuralstem arising out of its repeated derogatory statements to the public about their patent portfolio. Also in May 2008, Neuralstem filed suit against StemCells Inc. and NeuroSpheres in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking a declaratory judgment that the ‘505 and ‘418 patents are either invalid or are not infringed by Neuralstem and that Neuralstem has not violated Calif ornia state law. In August 2008, the California court transferred the lawsuit against Neuralstem to Maryland for resolution on the merits. In July 2009, the Maryland District Court granted StemCells Inc.’s motion to consolidate these two cases with the litigation they initiated against Neuralstem in 2006. Fact discovery has concluded in the cases and the first phase of trial is expected to commence in December 2014. In April 2008, StemCells Inc. filed an opposition to Neuralstem’s European Patent No. 0 915968 (methods of isolating, propagating and differentiating CNS stem cells), because the claimed invention is believed by the company to be unpatentable over prior art, including the patents StemCells Inc. acquired from NeuroSpheres. In December 2010, the European Patent Office ruled that all composition claims in Neuralstem’s ‘968 European patent were invalid and unpatentable over prior art. Neuralstem appealed this decision but recently withdrew its appeal with prejudice. In October, 2013, StemCells Inc. acquired from NeuroSpheres a patent portfolio consisting of the patents they licensed from NeuroSpheres on an exclusive worldwide basis, including the six patents that are the subject of the patent infringement litigation against Neuralstem. StemCells Inc. issued 139,548 shares of unregistered common stock to NeuroSpheres. All preexisting agreements were terminated and no further milestone and royalty payments are due to NeuroSpheres.
|
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Nov 17, 2014 13:56:23 GMT
According to PACER, a hearing is scheduled for today in the patent lawsuit between Stemcell and Neuralstem. Attached is a copy of an earlier court order that offers a good historical perspective on the case. Is there a patent lawyer on the board who would like to share her/his perspective? Neuralstem filed a "motion to dismiss" the case... essentially claiming that's STEM's claims did not hold water. The courts disagreed, and the trial is now progressing. |
|
|
|
Post by dayanand33 on Nov 17, 2014 15:36:32 GMT
lifetechcapital.com/ltc/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/STEM-Update-11-17-14.pdfPatent Infringement Suit Against Neuralstem Scheduled for December: StemCells Inc. ongoing patent infringement lawsuit against Neuralstem (NYSE MKT:CUR) has now completed the discovery phase and the first phase of the bench trial is expected to commence in December 2014. Investors should note that there are no claims of patent infringement against StemCells, Inc. by Neuralstem. StemCells Inc. Patent Infringement and Libel Suits Against Neuralstem (Amex:CUR) In July 2006, StemCells Inc. filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that Neuralstem’s activities violate claims in four of the patents exclusively licensed from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 6,294,346 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for drug screening), U.S. Patent No. 7,101,709 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for screening biological agents), U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells), and U.S. Patent No. 6,497,872 (claiming methods for transplanting human neural stem cells). In May 20 08, StemCells Inc. filed a second patent infringement suit against Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr. In this suit, filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, they allege that Neuralstem’s activities infringe claims in two patents exclusively license from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (claiming composition of matter of human neural stem cells derived from any source material) and U.S. Patent No. 7,115,418 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells). In addition, they allege various state law causes of action against Neuralstem arising out of its repeated derogatory statements to the public about their patent portfolio. Also in May 2008, Neuralstem filed suit against StemCells Inc. and NeuroSpheres in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking a declaratory judgment that the ‘505 and ‘418 patents are either invalid or are not infringed by Neuralstem and that Neuralstem has not violated Calif ornia state law. In August 2008, the California court transferred the lawsuit against Neuralstem to Maryland for resolution on the merits. In July 2009, the Maryland District Court granted StemCells Inc.’s motion to consolidate these two cases with the litigation they initiated against Neuralstem in 2006. Fact discovery has concluded in the cases and the first phase of trial is expected to commence in December 2014. In April 2008, StemCells Inc. filed an opposition to Neuralstem’s European Patent No. 0 915968 (methods of isolating, propagating and differentiating CNS stem cells), because the claimed invention is believed by the company to be unpatentable over prior art, including the patents StemCells Inc. acquired from NeuroSpheres. In December 2010, the European Patent Office ruled that all composition claims in Neuralstem’s ‘968 European patent were invalid and unpatentable over prior art. Neuralstem appealed this decision but recently withdrew its appeal with prejudice. In October, 2013, StemCells Inc. acquired from NeuroSpheres a patent portfolio consisting of the patents they licensed from NeuroSpheres on an exclusive worldwide basis, including the six patents that are the subject of the patent infringement litigation against Neuralstem. StemCells Inc. issued 139,548 shares of unregistered common stock to NeuroSpheres. All preexisting agreements were terminated and no further milestone and royalty payments are due to NeuroSpheres. Do we have a specific date for the bench trial? The CUR pps may remain suppressed until the bench trial. |
|
|
|
Post by tradeup on Nov 17, 2014 15:54:09 GMT
lifetechcapital.com/ltc/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/STEM-Update-11-17-14.pdfPatent Infringement Suit Against Neuralstem Scheduled for December: StemCells Inc. ongoing patent infringement lawsuit against Neuralstem (NYSE MKT:CUR) has now completed the discovery phase and the first phase of the bench trial is expected to commence in December 2014. Investors should note that there are no claims of patent infringement against StemCells, Inc. by Neuralstem. StemCells Inc. Patent Infringement and Libel Suits Against Neuralstem (Amex:CUR) In July 2006, StemCells Inc. filed suit against Neuralstem, Inc. in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging that Neuralstem’s activities violate claims in four of the patents exclusively licensed from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 6,294,346 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for drug screening), U.S. Patent No. 7,101,709 (claiming the use of human neural stem cells for screening biological agents), U.S. Patent No. 5,851,832 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells), and U.S. Patent No. 6,497,872 (claiming methods for transplanting human neural stem cells). In May 20 08, StemCells Inc. filed a second patent infringement suit against Neuralstem and its two founders, Karl Johe and Richard Garr. In this suit, filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, they allege that Neuralstem’s activities infringe claims in two patents exclusively license from NeuroSpheres, specifically U.S. Patent No. 7,361,505 (claiming composition of matter of human neural stem cells derived from any source material) and U.S. Patent No. 7,115,418 (claiming methods for proliferating human neural stem cells). In addition, they allege various state law causes of action against Neuralstem arising out of its repeated derogatory statements to the public about their patent portfolio. Also in May 2008, Neuralstem filed suit against StemCells Inc. and NeuroSpheres in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking a declaratory judgment that the ‘505 and ‘418 patents are either invalid or are not infringed by Neuralstem and that Neuralstem has not violated Calif ornia state law. In August 2008, the California court transferred the lawsuit against Neuralstem to Maryland for resolution on the merits. In July 2009, the Maryland District Court granted StemCells Inc.’s motion to consolidate these two cases with the litigation they initiated against Neuralstem in 2006. Fact discovery has concluded in the cases and the first phase of trial is expected to commence in December 2014. In April 2008, StemCells Inc. filed an opposition to Neuralstem’s European Patent No. 0 915968 (methods of isolating, propagating and differentiating CNS stem cells), because the claimed invention is believed by the company to be unpatentable over prior art, including the patents StemCells Inc. acquired from NeuroSpheres. In December 2010, the European Patent Office ruled that all composition claims in Neuralstem’s ‘968 European patent were invalid and unpatentable over prior art. Neuralstem appealed this decision but recently withdrew its appeal with prejudice. In October, 2013, StemCells Inc. acquired from NeuroSpheres a patent portfolio consisting of the patents they licensed from NeuroSpheres on an exclusive worldwide basis, including the six patents that are the subject of the patent infringement litigation against Neuralstem. StemCells Inc. issued 139,548 shares of unregistered common stock to NeuroSpheres. All preexisting agreements were terminated and no further milestone and royalty payments are due to NeuroSpheres. Do we have a specific date for the bench trial? The CUR pps may remain suppressed until the bench trial. The bench trial is scheduled for Dec 9 through Dec 12, which will either resolve the case in its entirety or will allow the case to move forward to expert discovery to assess the patent infringement issues could begin in 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by dayanand33 on Nov 17, 2014 16:19:55 GMT
Do we have a specific date for the bench trial? The CUR pps may remain suppressed until the bench trial. The bench trial is scheduled for Dec 9 through Dec 12, which will either resolve the case in its entirety or will allow the case to move forward to expert discovery to assess the patent infringement issues could begin in 2015. Thanks Tradeup, I am betting on the fact that the case won't be resolved in the entirety in December. I am no lawyer but feel that bench trial is weighing down on CUR. I am taking its advantage and accumulating at anything below $2.75. The tld is scheduled to be out by late Jan. CUR has not given any peek at the phase 2a results. Therefore there is a bound to a high surprise element. |
|
