-412-
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 [Estate of 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
to another stage to bring it to a commercial product
that will be put on the shelf.
158(...continued)
patent rights, to own the rights, and that IRC owned no
rights.
* * * * *
[Petitioners' counsel]: Well, in fact, isn’t it
true, Mr. Kanter, that unless a patent was obtained or
reissued, that all rights would have remained in IRC?
[Kanter]: That is my understanding.
Kanter, Transcr. at 4851-4854.
Page: Previous 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011