Barron’s “Patent Expert”: Merck v. Gilead — We Agree, And We Said It All — Many, Many Months Ago

As we long suggested, the upshot here is that we will be surprised if Merck is ever able to actually book any royalty revenue from this litigation — or, at least not more than a few hundred million dollars, in total. Immaterial to both companies — as we’ve long guessed.

In any event, here is the Barron’s piece, this morning (good to see sanity making a come-back, here) — and a bit:

. . . .We spoke to a patent expert about the Gilead/Merck patent case related to Sovaldi. The expert notes that this case is not very straight forward and the Jury verdict is only one of the many steps here. Given Gilead’s claim that Merck had “unclean hands” while obtaining information which helped writing of patents in question, this case could take ~2-3 years before reaching conclusion. . . .

The expert believes that Gilead has a strong defense (on the face of it) and common sense is in Gilead’s favor. Gilead could argue that despite having this patent Merck could not develop the drug and, therefore, these patents are not comprehensive. . . .

As ever, we will keep you posted. Feel free to search above for “Sovaldi” — to read perhaps 75 posts on the topic, stretching back over three years. Onward, on a rainy cold gray Chicago day. . .


There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: