The exclusive contract between ViroMed and Reyon Pharmaceutical to jointly develop gene therapy VM202 to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease, has ended up as a patent legal battle between the two.

Reyon recently filed a lawsuit against ViroMed for a transfer of the holder of VM202’s patent rights.

Reyon claims it should have a 50 percent stake in VM202 through a change and transfer of ViroMed’s local and overseas rights, get access to all clinical trials and related data, and receive data about the production of DNA materials and finished goods manufactured in overseas factories.

Reyon is asserting that it should have a 50 percent stake in 44 VM202-related patents, being applied for registration or already registered locally and globally. The 44 patents include a substance patent, an indication patent, and a design patent.

However, ViroMed argues Reyon is demanding too much because Reyon already has the local sales rights for VM202. In January 2004, the two clinched the deal to commercialize VM202 in the domestic market.

“We are thoroughly analyzing Reyon’s petition through our legal representative. ViroMed’s transfer of rights to sell VM202 to Reyon confined only to the local market. Reyon is demanding research outcomes, materials and patent stakes that are outside their rights,” a ViroMed official said.

The official went on to say that Reyon’s claim “did not make sense” because commercializing the product in the domestic market would not need an overseas patent.

“Reyon’s petition does not affect international clinical trials on VM202. We will take a proper legal process to deal with the issue for the benefit of our company and shareholders,” the official said.

ViroMed said Reyon’s lawsuit violated its duty of candor and good faith toward the 2004 contract for the commercialization of VM202 in the local market. “We are considering terminating the contract and reclaiming our local sales and production rights,” it said.

Reyon said its petition is about requesting ViroMed “to implement parts of the original contract, which have not been carried out despite several settlements since the 2004 deal.”
“ViroMed is seriously damaging the rights and benefits of our company’s shareholders by mentioning a termination of the contract without any legal grounds,” Reyon said.