Interference No. 104,522 Paper108
Nichols v. Tabakoff Page 61
the synthesis method used by Nichols to synthesize these compounds. Further, Dr.
Tabakoffs hope to give Nichols "the proper credit and reward for ... [its] contributions" is
not inconsistent with a hope to give Nichols compensation for services rendered.
Therefore, the letter of August 16, 1996 is not inconsistent with a good faith
disagreement over joint inventorship of Tabakofrs claimed compounds.
iv. the letter of January 17, 1997 (Ex 2005)
109. According to the letter from Dr. Tabakoff to Dr. Yielding dated January 17, 1997,
"the review of our Phase 11 application" was attached thereto (Ex 2005, 11).
110. Dr. Tabakoff alluded to Nichols "anxiousness to submit a patent on the ureido
substituted kynurenates" and wrote:
If, however, you and A] wish to proceed with a patent application prior to
our getting the data on the comparison of our compounds and those
patented by Merck, I would like you both not to forget our conversation in
Denver. The idea for generating the chemical structures (i.e., the ureido
substituted kynurenates) originated with me, as did the postulate of the
proposed biologic activity of, particularly, the diphenylureido derivatives.
My postulates have been borne out by experiments in my laboratories. 1,
therefore, fully expect that any patent application on the ureido substitute
kynurenates will have me definitely included as an inventor on the
application. ... [Ex 2004, T 2.]
Whatever Nichols might be planning to submit a patent application on, Dr.
Tabalkoff affirmatively claims inventorship of uredo substituted kynurenates,
particularly, diphenylureido derivatives.
Therefore, the letter of January 17, 1997 is not inconsistent with a good faith
disagreement over joint inventorship of Tabakofrs claimed compounds.
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007