Monday, May 1, 1995
The hubbub surrounding publication of a narrowly focused and incorrect Wall Street Journal article has threatened to obscure the larger issues in the antisense trial between Calgene Inc. and Enzo Biochem Inc., some of which have potential implications for all biotech companies.
The CGNE-ENZ trial has ended, and a decision from the judge in the U.S. District Court in Delaware is expected in September or October.
Last week's Journal article focused on an issue that attorneys for both sides consider a subtext of the plot: allegations by Walter Gilbert of Harvard University that work done at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle was fraudulent because of the way the raw data were prepared for publication.
The article incorrectly stated that this work was the basis of CGNE's issued patent. In fact, CGNE has obtained a non-exclusive license on the Fred Hutchinson group's patent application and has cited the work done there by Jonathan Izant and Harold Weintraub as prior art to the work done by Masayori Inouye of the State University of New York.
Who owns what
ENZ (Farmingdale, N.Y.) has licensed three U.S. antisense patents issued to SUNY: Nos. 5,190,931, 5,208,149 and 5,272,065. The SUNY patents claim the regulation of antisense in all cells - both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, but the example cited in the patent is the bacterium E. coli.