SYVC » Topics » ANDAPharm

This excerpt taken from the SYVC 10-Q filed Jun 22, 2009.
ANDAPharm”) in May 2006, we have a facility in Fort Lauderdale operating under cGMP (current good manufacturing practices) guidelines for the manufacturing and distribution of over-the-counter (“
This excerpt taken from the SYVC 10-Q filed Sep 15, 2008.
ANDAPharm”) and another two co-defendants in the United States District Court , District of Colorado. The complaint, as amended, alleged that ANDApharm’s Folnate Plus product infringed a patent of which plaintiff is a licensee and that the advertising of the product constituted false advertising under the Lanham Act. In the amended complaint, plaintiff sought a preliminary and permanent injunction, treble damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 11, 2008, ANDAPharm filed its answer denying the claims being made by plaintiff, challenging plaintiff’s standing to bring the claim and counterclaiming for declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and patent invalidity. On March 14, 2008, ANDAPharm and the co-defendants filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a separate litigation challenging the ownership of the patent at issue, which was subsequently denied by the Court. On June 27, 2008, ANDApharm entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which it agreed to immediately cease the manufacture and sale of ANDApharm’s Folnate Plus product. The settlement involved no monetary payment by ANDAPharm and no admission of wrongdoing. We believe that the terms of the settlement will not have a material effect on our financial condition or operations.

This excerpt taken from the SYVC 10-Q filed Jun 16, 2008.
ANDAPharm”) and another two co-defendants in the United States District Court, District of Colorado. The complaint, as amended, alleges that ANDApharm’s Folnate Plus product infringes a patent of which plaintiff is a licensee and that the advertising of the product constitutes false advertising under the Lanham Act. In the amended complaint, plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, treble damages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 11, 2008, ANDAPharm filed its answer denying the claims being made by plaintiff, challenging plaintiff’s standing to bring the claim and counterclaiming for declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and patent invalidity. On March 14, 2008, ANDAPharm and the co-defendants filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a separate litigation challenging the ownership of the patent at issue, which was subsequently denied by the Court. On May 30 2008, ANDAPharm reached a non-monetary settlement in principle and is in the process of executing a definitive settlement agreement.

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki