0
Interference No. 104,522 Paper108
Nichols v. Tabakoff Page 63
Enterprises, L.L.C. This agreement would state that any profits derived
from the commercialization of the DCUKs would be divided in a way that
Yielding and Daugherty Research Enterprises, L.L.C., receives 45% of
these profits and Lohocla Research Corporation receives 55% of these
profits. ... [Ex 2007, p. 2, % 3.]
This letter suggests that Tabakoff believed a joint patent application with Nichols
was possible, which application claimed DCUKs, their use as neuroprotective agents
and a route of synthesis, and that any profits derived from commercialization of DCUKS
would be shared between the respective companies of Tabakoff (Lohocla Research
Corporation) and Nichols (Yielding and Daugherty Research Enterprises, L.L.C.).
Consistent with the earlier letters discussed above, this letter suggests that Tabakoff
believed itself to be inventor of the claimed compounds and their use as
neuroprotective agents and believed Nichols to be inventor of a route of synthesis. This
letter does not suggest that the synthesis of Tabakoffs claimed compounds required
other than ordinary skill in the art or that methods of synthesis thereof other than that
Nichols allegedly used to make these compounds at Tabakoffs behest did not exist.
Therefore, the letter of April 17, 1997 is not inconsistent with a good faith
disagreement over joint inventorship of Tabakoffs claimed compounds.
In summary, the series of letters proffered by Nichols (Exs 2002-2207) are not
inconsistent with an inference that Tabakoff had a good faith belief that it was the sole
inventor of its claimed compounds; that Nichols may have a claim of ownership to the
any profits due to the patenting of Tabakoffs claimed compounds since Nichols was
responsible for making these compounds for Tabakoff; and, that Nichols may have
invented a separately patentable method of synthesizing 4-urea kynurenates.
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007