- 426 -
not show that our conclusions in Estate of Cook were in error,
nor does it warrant a different result. Essentially, Kanter
misunderstands this Court's reasoning in Estate of Cook. He
argues that we incorrectly assumed that IRC held no ownership
rights in any research developed under the research project.
Kanter contends that IRC did hold "other valuable rights" outside
of any existing and derivative future "Patent Rights" in the NPT-
1500 series of compounds retained by Newport and Sloan-Kettering.
However, Kanter was unable to explain or describe what those
rights might be, nor was any other evidence presented that would
establish or support his contention. Kanter testified:
[Kanter]: * * * But it was my understanding and
my belief that there is a body of rights that, unless
encompassed by a specific patent that would be issued *
* * to Sloan-Kettering and Newport, under which they
could theoretically preclude the exploitation of that
limited right, all other rights that might result from
this particular research project did belong to IRC and
that they were broad enough in--as we understood it to
allow for exploitation of a profitable product or to
move to the next stage of possible licensing, if in
fact there was something developed.
The Court: So this body of rights that you are
referring to--would these be rights that would be
considered research and development.
[Kanter]: Well, actually my recollection is--and
the [Cook] record will disclose it more accurately--Dr.
Glasky tried to point out to the Court at that time
that there is in this pharmaceutical field not the
necessity at any given time for a research and
development project that you develop a marketable
product that can go on the shelf in a drugstore, but
that in this field it is common to bring research to a
point where you can license what you have developed to
a large pharmaceutical manufacturer, who will take it
Page: Previous 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011