PaladinConqueror59
3 semanas hace
I mean there was a fraudulent accounting news on one of the dates I listed, where do you focus on it?
In the end, it was all falsehood articles, and it will be the same this time.
I wonder if Goldman Sachs' analyst really has knowledge of the patent field.
I am referring to Sanofi v AMGEN's lawsuit as it relates to a violation of activation requirements.
It's very close with this case. You really don't know?
I can see your level when you say it's not related and sarcastically say martial law 2.0 lol
I am a shareholder of Alteogen and a shareholder of Halozyme. I'm just a regular person who wants to know the truth.
Previously, you asked me to bring the patent document number, but when I mentioned the patent document number and claim, I saw your level of answering with stock price. BI1 rofl.
At your level, it's only a mocking level of conversation, and I don't think it's going to be an in-depth conversation related to patents, so I'll end it now.
FAREWELL!
PaladinConqueror59
3 semanas hace
Answer the patent document & violation of enablement requirement.
(If you don't understand, search Amgen v Sanofi. i told you this so many time.)
Your answer is tied only to the stock price view.
And, find chart
09/20/20 ~ 05/20/21
12/13/21 ~ 01/27/22
08/22/22 ~ 10/13/22
03/26/24 ~ 04/05/24
and recent days.
Every time that fell, there was always malicious news, like termination of his contract with Merck and malicious - fraudulent accounting news.
According to your logic, the date Merck requested USTPO to judge is the 12th. Since then, Halozyme has fallen 30%, and the stock has not returned.
Judging by the stock price is only fragmentary, and it is correct to judge by the scope of patent rights.
Leaving aside the facts of the patent, it is rather silliness to judge only in the direction of the stock price.
MDASE's scope of a patent claim(distinct polypeptide is 1.50 x 10^63 and 1.35 x 10^66) is so large.
That scope of the claim is the scope that another inventor cannot complete even if he studies for life.
-----> this is violation of enablement requirement.
MDASE US9,447,401's claim seq id no:3 / 204 F replace to P
---> Alteogen's not use seq id no;3 and do not replace them
US 11,952,600 claim 1, at least 95% of the residues of the amino acid sequence of the modified PH20 polypeptide are identical to the residues in an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 3
and 32-66 the modification at position 320 is a replacement selected from among H, K, R and S.
It is almost impossible for competitors to choose the best sequence, truncate position, and replacement targets while experimenting with such a large number of cases.
PaladinConqueror59
3 semanas hace
lol
If there is a suspension of sales in time for the release date of the product, it will be hurt, so it is to prevent it in advance.
.
PLZ
SEARCH PATENT DOCUMENT
AND SESRCH ENABLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.
AND AMGEN V SANOFI CASE.
.
You're smarter than the legal team of big pharmaceutical companies, aren't you?
.
This is my last post at this time.
Bye BI1, No conversation with you seems to be beneficial.
.
Trust Helen.
I will Trust Merck, Daiichi, Sandoz.
stockrafter
3 semanas hace
Yes, more info to the ongoing competition saga....
Been watching the Daiichi part of the saga, and would suggest a minor correction to your conclusion.........."
“The conclusion is that, Alteogen and Daiichi, concluded that it did not infringe on the Halozyme patent." The courts will eventually make the final call on infringement, IMO
Looks like investors will need to keep a watch on any new petition filings related to Daiichi, as well as Sandoz, and the ongoing MSD petitions, which seems MSD has filed a second petition to a second MDASE patent “12018298.”
https://pharmaphorum.com/news/daiichi-sankyo-partners-alteogen-subcutaneous-enhertu
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230102005028/en/Alteogen-Enters-Into-an-Exclusive-License-Agreement-to-Develop-and-Commercialize-Biosimilar-Products-Enabled-by-Alteogen%E2%80%99s-Hybrozyme%E2%84%A2-Technology
biotechinvestor1
3 semanas hace
Good, at least you gave up on the silly martial law excuse.
Stocks in any country go up and down. Nobody denies that. However, you are making a claim that a 33% drop in Alteogen (coinciding with patent vilation news) is not because of the news but because of characteristics of derivatives in a particular foreign market and that things are volatile over there. However, the chart of the very company you're making this claim about rejects your argument. Alt's chart does not show frequent 30% drops as you claim.
On one hand, ALT CEO claims that they're not infringing on any of Halozyme's patents and on the other hand Merck is trying to invalidate one of Halozyme's patents. Ask yourselves this question, if they didn't think they're infringing why would they move to invalidate a patent?
Also remember, as Helen said in her Q&A this week, it is not just the one patent (the one Merck is trying to invalidate) that Alteogen is infringing, rather it's a whole portfolio of other patents thag Alt is violation of.
PaladinConqueror59
3 semanas hace
Hedge funds short stock futures position, sell spot stock to maximize profits and buy back down below. and publishing bearish news.
That's KOSPI & KOSDAQ 's characteristic.
and you can see Alteogen's longterm chart for yourself. There have not been many (or hardly any) sudden 30% drops in the price over the past 5 or 10 years. -->
lots of drops 5 years.
Every time that fell, there was always malicious news, like termination of his contract with Merck.
But what is the price of Alteogen now?
As you know, biosimilar companies are quite specialized in patents that are released in time for the patent expiration of the original drug.
It must have been reviewed by MERCK, DAIICHI, and SANDOZ.
If they can't use ENHAZE, they can use MDASE, but why did they do that?
AND plz Search AMGEN V SANOFI.
MDASE US9,447,401's claim seq id no:3 / 204 F replace to P
---> Alteogen's not use seq id no;3 and do not replace them
US 11,952,600 claim 1, at least 95% of the residues of the amino acid sequence of the modified PH20 polypeptide are identical to the residues in an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 3
and 32-66 the modification at position 320 is a replacement selected from among H, K, R and S.
It is almost impossible for competitors to choose the best sequence, truncate position, and replacement targets while experimenting with such a large number of cases.
MDASE have violated enablement requirements.
We can just wait USTPO'S judgment.
biotechinvestor1
3 semanas hace
Nice try! But you are incorrect. The price drop in Alteogen occured well before the Martial Law. The price dropped 33% from 450k to 290k on the news of patent infringment between November 15 and 25. The Martial law was Dec 3 to Dec 4. There was no material change in price of Alteogen stock on Dec 3 or 4. Everyone can see that and here is the chart:
Alteogen Inc
https://g.co/kgs/prrHssx
Regarding the "deravatives" nonesense, you can see Alteogen's longterm chart for yourself. There have not been many (or hardly any) sudden 30% drops in the price over the past 5 or 10 years. So, to say that this new sudden and significant drop is due to "deravatives" makes little sense.
You know it's related to the patnet infringement, when their CEO is constantly issuing memos and talking to media pleading that they are not in trouble with patent infringement.
Regarding Sandoz, they are doing a biosimilar product with Alteogen. Halzoyme doesn't work with biosimilar makers (at least not so far). Halo prefers to have the royalty percentage from higher base price of brands vs. genereics.
Other Alteogen partners are forced to go with alteogen, because halozyme has an exclusive contract in that class of medication with another pharma.