+ Watch MTEX
on My Watchlist
The Company develops high-quality, proprietary nutritional supplements, skin care and topical products, and weight-management products that are sold to independent associates and members.
If they do not settle the Lawsuit with Glycobiotics before the final ruling comes down they are going to tank big time. The jury has already returned that there was and is no infringement on the Mannatech patent by this comapany. If MTEX decides not to settle and allows this ruling to stand it will pave the way for the hundreds of non MLM glyconutrient companies to openly market without fear of MTEX. That will spell problems for MTEX. If you own this stock I would watch very carefully what they do next week.
This below message totally contradicts your above statement? Article starts below....Jury Validates Key Mannatech Technology Patents Involving Its Ambrotose(R) Glyconutrient ProductsLast Update: 5/12/2008 9:15:00 AMJury Validates Key Mannatech Technology Patents Involving Its Ambrotose(R) Glyconutrient ProductsGlycoproducts International Inc., found to have committed patent and trademark infringement COPPELL, Texas, May 12, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- Mannatech, Incorporated (MTEX) a leading developer and provider of dietary supplements and skin care solutions, today announced that a federal court jury in the Northern District of Texas found that Glycoproducts International Inc. had committed infringement of Mannatech's patent and trademark relating to Ambrotose(R). The jury found Glycoproducts International Inc. had committed patent infringement on Mannatech's U.S. Patent No. 7,157,431. The jury found that this infringement was willful, and also ruled in favor of Mannatech on all patent validity issues presented to the jury. In addition, the jury ruled in favor of Mannatech relative to trademark infringement claims made in the case. Based on these rulings, Mannatech will also be pursuing an immediate injunction prohibiting Glycoproducts International Inc. from further engaging in the production, distribution and sale of its Glycomannan product, as well as the reimbursement of Mannatech's legal fees on this matter. "We are extremely pleased by these outcomes and will continue to vigorously defend our technology and cutting-edge research and development in the groundbreaking field of glyconutrients," said Terry Persinger, president and CEO of Mannatech. "With 45 registered patents, five in the U.S. and 40 more internationally, and an additional 85 patents pending worldwide, we believe these favorable rulings reinforce our leadership position as a developer and provider of high-quality nutritional supplements." The case stems from a suit filed by Mannatech in March 2006 against Glycoproducts International, formerly Glycobiotics International Inc., asserting that the company infringed on certain Mannatech Ambrotose patents originally issued in 2005 and 2007. "A company's ability to stop patent infringement requires not only the issuance of a patent, but also a favorable court interpretation of the patent and a defense of its validity," said Keith Clark, general counsel at Mannatech. "This decision, coupled with the company's successful outcomes in the Markman hearing rulings last year, paves the way for protecting these critical Mannatech technology patents moving forward." The verdict was delivered on Friday, May 9, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Jurors reached their decision following five days of testimony before Federal Magistrate Jeff Kaplan.
The statement that the jury found that there was no infringement is false. Here is the press release from PR Newswire with the correct information.http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-12-2008/0004811309&EDATE=Perhaps you should check your facts, sport.
Actually my pick still stands. That press release is from MTEX themselves, maybe you should check the source "sport", what else are they gonna say? However if you break it down it is full of "foward looking" language. The truth is there has not been a final ruling by the judge as of today. The jury did NOT validate Mannatech's patent infringement claims in fact quite the opposite. They found that Glycobiotics did NOT infringe on Mannatech's original patent but MAY infringe on the Continuation Patent, however since their is no infringement on the original it is highly unlikely infringement on the continuation occurs. The jury did however find that Glycobiotics had caused damage in some way to Mannatech's trademark and recommended some damages be awarded. Whatever Mannatech's Spin Mill generates is just the nature of being international MLM corporation with the need to keep the associates with a warm fuzzy feeling so the keep selling product but my money is still on the little guy.
The devil is in the details...notice that Mannatech in their own press release say nothing about what the jury ruled on the '807' patent, the original patent that they received. The jury did rule in favor of Mannatech in the '431' patent, but that is not the primary patent. This 431 patent hinges on the 807. They just got the '431' patent about a year and a half ago. If a substance has been manufactured for longer than 12 months you can't patent it. Maybe the jury did not know this when they ruled in favor of Mannatech. Even if Glycoproducts does infringe, it does not matter because of the time that has elapsed. They got their second patent about 9 years too late. Personally, I would have reservations doing business with a company that would try to 'slip one by' their share holders.
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ratings and Key Statistics provided by Zacks.
SEC Filings and Insider Transactions provided by Edgar Online.
Powered and implemented by Interactive Data Managed Solutions. Terms & Conditions