Dr. John Faessel's  Instablog

Dr. John Faessel
Send Message
Dr. John L. Faessel is a seasoned and respected Wall Street professional with industry-wide recognition for expertise in market strategy and analysis. He is widely recognized for his insights in public companies. For over 20-years Dr. Faessel’s ON THE MARKET reports have been widely distributed... More
  • A Quick Update on Impending Events & News That Will Affect (CIGX) 7 comments
    Jun 28, 2011 1:15 PM

    Dr. John L. Faessel


    Commentary and Insights


    Star Scientific Inc. (CIGX) Nasdaq


    A Stock for the Ages – Maybe? Likely!


    A Quick Update on Impending Events & News That Will Affect (CIGX)


    Part 1.


    Every day I receive numerous calls and e-mails from funds, brokers and investors requesting information regarding the upcoming near-term events and news that are pertinent to Star Scientific. Many of these contacts are from new potential investors that would like to be briefed on the remarkable Star story. Accordingly, I thought I would lay down a list of what I see and hear that are "cooking" on the proverbial stove and put some kind of timetable on Star’s multiple themes. As you may know I was an attendee at the Roskamp gathering in Sarasota Florida on June 1 where much of the research at the Roskamp Institute and Johns Hopkins was discussed and demonstrated with videos and an extensive slide show during the four-hour presentation.


    Hopefully, this report will lighten the load of contacts that I receive. I'm an investor in Star Scientific shares and have no other affiliation with the company other than a shareholder.


    The list is extensive and the timing of some news re these themes is due shortly, others in actuality, are not that far off either. Because of the length of the report I’m publishing it in two parts; Part 1 today and Part 2, likely tomorrow.


    ·       Peer-review - Dr. Mullan, Roskamp's director of research announced at the meeting that a peer-review is being readied for publication. The studies are now over and I believe that at any time this research could be published in one of the many important medical journals that inform medical professionals about new research in Alzheimer's. This peer-review could have profound reach and importance for Alzheimer's treatment. Dr Mullan played videos showing once-Alzheimer’s-afflicted mice beginning not only to remember again, but becoming able to add critical new information to the cognitive equation and, thus, to change behavior so as even to improve their lot. That’s impossible for a “demented” mouse. A split screen video depicted a mouse fully impaired with the diseased for comparison. He went on to say that CRP levels also fell 50% in these test animals, indicating less inflammation. Dr. Mullan called the research “profound.” In my opinion the publication of this peer-review study will gain worldwide press, as to date, there's been no equivalent treatment that would restore the cognitive ability of mice or humans for that matter.


    ·       inVentive Health is preparing to increase its marketing for CigRx™ (Stars product that reduces the urge to smoke )to  the nationwide public with a major marketing push with new, state of the art call centers to handle the volume of sales that they anticipate.  I believe this is already underway. inVentive Health is a private company, partnering with Star Scientific. The Richmond launch included infomercials running on TV, representatives contacting the local doctors in the area, and delivery of the CigRx™ product to pharmacies and other health-related outlets. Also of note: the (RCP-006) product CigRx™ now has over 32,000 “friends” on Facebook, up from about 5,000 six weeks ago. It appears to be on its way to going viral. http://www.facebook.com/CigRx You can purchase CigRx™ online at www.cigrx.com


    ·       The launch of the product Anatabloc that Star is now packaging and readying for market is imminent; likely just days or a few weeks away. Anatabloc is the preparation of the focused compound (RCP-006) that is used in the studies at Roskamp and Johns Hopkins, and in the Flint Study. Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams called the upcoming launch an “historic occasion.” There is huge nationwide interest from consumers in this product as the word is starting to leak about its beneficial effects. Some packages of Anatabloc are already out there in the economy. It was stated at the Roskamp meeting that over 100,000 people have taken the product. I believe that the market potential for this product could be immense. Famed science author and economist Patrick Cox of Breakthrough Technologies was another speaker at the Roskamp meeting and he spoke to what RCP-006 will do for humankind. Mr. Cox suggested that the “impact of this compound will be unfathomable for society at large”, and said the reduction of NF-kB proteins will increase the average lifespan significantly, with attendant impacts on insurance, Social Security, and Medicare. If you've read any of his work on Star Scientific, you’ll know that he sees the entire general population of our planet one day consuming this nutritional supplement. He may well be right.


    ·       Two prominent Johns Hopkins Professors of Medicine presented at the Roskamp meeting: widely known and acclaimed endocrinologist Dr. Paul Ladenson, and internationally known Dr. Patrizo Caturegli spoke of their research on RCP-006 in stopping thyroiditis. Much of the research done by the lead scientists and researchers at Johns Hopkins is near, or if not complete and I believe we are just days away from results being published. 20 million Americans suffer from thyroiditis and I'm in that sample myself and have been taking Anatabloc for a few weeks. I'll keep you updated on how this goes. Significantly, Dr. Ladenson in his final comments at the meeting said that that aside from RCP-006 (think Anatabloc) there is no known compound that stops thyroiditis.  Impact on the shares of Star Scientific will be profound when this research is published.


    ·       The Roskamp studies on Alzheimer's disease are progressing. I'm looking at a picture of a slide that I snapped at the meeting during Dr. Mullan's Alzheimer's presentation. The title on the page is: Dementia Study Design, just below is a subtitle Alzheimer's Study. Importance of this slide as it represents the length of the study (24-weeks) with periodic evaluations from their enrolled study participants. In these evaluations they draw blood periodically for inflammatory biomarkers and Alzheimer's disease biomarkers. Quality of life and the qualities of daily living are also tracked and evaluated. And there is the necessary Placebo sample that undergoes the same evaluation. Dr. Mullan's presentation clearly showed that the compound RCP-006 dramatically reduces inflammation and, subsequently, the formation of beta-amyloid, which generates the plaque that causes Alzheimer’s. The shorthand to remember here is: Less inflammation, less accumulation of beta-amyloid, less plaque, less Alzheimer’s. See the link to the graph that graph demonstrates vividly that RCP-006 is more than three times more effective than Lipitor in reducing inflammation in human blood. http://rfdn.org/inflammaging.html RCP-006

    Dr. Mullan reported that there are no approved amyloid-reducing drugs, and noted pointedly that the FDA would consider one the “Holy Grail” of treatment. An anecdote that in my estimation sums up the pregnancy of these findings was his answer to an audience question. The question was, “Would you give a loved one or a close relative RCP-006 if they were showing signs of Alzheimer’s?” He paused ever so briefly and said, “Yes!" The publication of these results are realistically out in time a couple of (or few) months, but when this one gets published I believe the impact to be huge, global and almost beyond comparison or comprehension for that matter. I know that rings of hyperbole, but some of the anecdotal stories that are surfacing now are about just miraculous healings.


    If you missed my previous reports—more specific in detail and scope on each of these themes—or wish to receive my Best Ideas for 2011, send a request to: Dr.Faessel@onthemar.com


    Disclaimer: I have bought shares of Star Scientific in the open market.








Back To Dr. John Faessel's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (7)
Track new comments
  • Harry Beck
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
    You have bad timing. The Streetsweeper just announced that they will hammer the company in a two part investigative article:


    TheStreetSweeper has just added Star Scientific (Nasdaq: CIGX) – the subject of an upcoming two-part investigative report -- to its “Caught on Radar” list of risky stocks that have soared on bullish promotions and could be headed for a plunge. Going forward, TheStreetSweeper will soon publish a pair of detailed articles that take a close look at (among other things) the following: the turbulent history of the ever-changing company, the stained record of its longtime CEO, the steady erosion of its financial results, the speculative drivers of its highflying stock and the relentless hype that has repeatedly lifted those volatile (and increasingly diluted) shares.
    28 Jun 2011, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • valueinvestor123
    , contributor
    Comments (325) | Send Message
    Why do you refuse to respond to the following:


    KENNETH D. LAUB, Plaintiff, v. JOHN L. FAESSEL and WORLDCO, L.L.C.


    The complaint alleges that, in 1993, defendant John L. Faessel introduced himself to plaintiff Kenneth D. Laub as a "duly registered investment advisor, specializing in advising high net worth individuals" regarding the stock market. In particular, Faessel represented that he had "extensive training and expertise as a technical analyst and chartist" and that he was regularly and successfully providing advice to a broad client base. Unbeknownst to Laub, however, none of this was true -- Faessel's only formal training is as a dentist. Relying on these misrepresentations, Laub retained Faessel as an "investment advisor" and paid him $ 18,000 between January 1, 1995 and June 30, 1995.


    In July 1995, Faessel falsely told Laub that he had become a consultant to defendant WorldCo and encouraged Laub to continue to use his services, now with the purported benefits of WorldCo's resources.


    In reliance on these false statements and Faessel's continuing misrepresentations as to his qualifications and expertise, Laub paid $ 17,500 for and relied upon Faessel's advice in purchasing securities. These investments resulted in a loss of $ 15,557,848.


    Faessel then falsely told Laub that he had become a registered representative with WorldCo and was qualified to execute trades for Laub's WorldCo accounts. Faessel encouraged Laub to consolidate several of his accounts at WorldCo and to allow Faessel to clear Laub's trades through a "prime brokerage account" at Spear, Leeds & Kellogg ("SLK") because he said
    such accounts supposedly offer "priority over retail accounts."


    Apparently these statements were also false. Laub, ignorant of the deception, agreed to open an account at WorldCo and a prime brokerage account at SLK and on December 8, 1995, he extended Faessel "limited trading authorization" to Faessel on his account.


    Relying on Faessel's recommendation, Laub bought and sold securities with WorldCo through Faessel which resulted in further losses of $13,988,362.


    In May 1996, Laub discovered that Faessel was neither a registered investment advisor nor a registered WorldCo representative and that he had no formal training in analyzing securities.


    Note: The complaint was dismissed but the factual findings by the Court remain.
    28 Jun 2011, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • justhinkin
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
    My Dear Mr. Beck:


    Regarding your little diatribe:




    You have bad timing. The Streetsweeper just announced that they will hammer the company in a two part investigative article:


    TheStreetSweeper has just added Star Scientific (Nasdaq: CIGX) – the subject of an upcoming two-part investigative report -- to its “Caught on Radar” list of risky stocks that have soared on bullish promotions and could be headed for a plunge. Going forward, TheStreetSweeper will soon publish a pair of detailed articles that take a close look at (among other things) the following: the turbulent history of the ever-changing company, the stained record of its longtime CEO, the steady erosion of its financial results, the speculative drivers of its highflying stock and the relentless hype that has repeatedly lifted those volatile (and increasingly diluted) shares.




    I would like to be permitted to ask the following questions about an event which you claim to foresee ... an event in/for the occurrence of which you seem invested with a great deal of confidence.


    Is TSS going to explain, in your forecast "expose", that the turbulent history, financial and otherwise, of the COMPANY ... Star Scientific ... has almost entirely to do with the betrayal by former partner B&W ... which nurtured a very lucrative business relationship with Star, including joint ventures that put Star in debt to B&W? Will TSS be explaining how fledgling Star went from a nice $93M revenue level in 1999 to one more than double that, about $220M, the very next year based on that relationship?


    Will TSS be relating B&W's strange, mysterious turnabout just three years later, to merge with B&W's arch rival in the tobacco industry, RJR ... the very company that Star was suing for infringement on the patented process on which Star's relationship with B&W was based?


    Is TSS going to explain that years of Star's subsequent debt-funded operations were the direct result of a sudden change in judges in the RJR case in the fall of 2004? Is TSS going to explain how a new judge, who mysteriously took over the case for no apparent reason other than that he wanted to and could, as a "senior" judge, canceled a jury trial on the whole infringement matter that was scheduled for January 2005?


    Will TSS explain how, suddenly, this new judge, who allegedly (information from newspaper articles and journals referenced online in 2007) has ties with RJR in his personal background (friends and former law partners), suddenly took over the case (from a judge that had the matter on a normal course for such cases) and "broke out" the routine matter of RJR's inequitable conduct charge?


    Will TSS explain that, unlike Williams' background, which cannot influence the actual market worth and possibilities for the IP he has produced and licensed exclusively to Star, the background of the new judge in the infringement case, Garbis, can bear directly on the outcome in such a case?


    The new judge canceled the scheduled January 2005 jury trial, and held a bench trial instead, considering only the otherwise-routine charge of inequitable conduct (IC).


    Is TSS going to explain how the change in judges took place, and why ... and how that is the fault of Star Scientific? Is TSS going to explain how that sudden turn of events, or how the subsequent disastrous financial effect on Star that this new judge would introduce by causing extreme and totally unnecessary delay in the litigation (as explained below) was the fault of Star Scientific?


    Is TSS going to explain how that subsequent trial, on only the IC matter, contained uncontroverted good-faith explanations by the major Star witnesses that proved there was no IC ... "proved", beyond legal doubt, because of the fact that RJR declined to even cross examine Star's witnesses so as to even attempt to controvert their affirmative (to Star's favor) testimony?


    Is TSS going to explain that any second year law student knows that in such a case, in which the burden of proof of IC was on RJR, Star literally could not lose on the IC charge (because Star proved its case with uncontroverted testimony in its favor)?


    Is TSS going to explain how those in attendance at the trial who knew law, including apparently the presiding judge (judging by his comments to RJR when they refused to cross Star's witnesses), thought that Star had won?


    Is TSS going to explain how the judge then sat on the matter, inexplicably and embarrassingly, refusing to issue a "decision" (even after promising to do so "soon", after inquiries by Star, after a year and 9 months) for two and one-half years?


    Is TSS going to explain how, when the judge finally issued his "decision" after 2.5 years, it completely ignored the existence of overwhelming uncontroverted evidence in the record proving that there was no IC by Star? Is TSS going to explain how the judge instead based his "decision" on the story concocted by RJR's attorneys, a story which RJR was afraid to try to back up with facts by actually cross examining Star's witnesses?


    Is TSS going to explain how, upon appeal of this extremely belated, RJR-concocted story/"decision", the appeals court found judge Garbis' support of (and his adoption as his "decision") RJR's concocted "IC novelette" to be "clearly erroneous", the most damning condemnation they could have chosen, in reversing Garbis' "decision" ... the 16 pages of which took him 2.5 years to write down and issue?


    Is TSS going to explain that that decision by the appeals court regarding the subject of IC is widely cited as precedent, and widely discussed in law circles, whenever the question of inequitable conduct comes up?


    Is TSS going to relate how differently things would certainly have gone for Star (financially and otherwise), no matter what the verdict may have been in a January 2005 jury trial on the whole of the infringement matter, just by not having to wait FOUR & 1/2 YEARS for the outcome?


    Is TSS going to relate that, amazingly, despite the prejudice against Star that this lower court judge showed (deciding a case in opposition to all factual evidence of record pointing one way), the appeals court decided to give the same judge a chance to redeem his "clearly erroneous" ways and, after completely reversing him, the appeals court remanded the case for the jury trial ... that was supposed to take place 4.5 years earlier ... to the same court? Will TSS relate how that too was Star's fault ... despite Stars well-founded petition to the appeals court that the case be remanded elsewhere?


    Is TSS going to relate how the lower Garbis court, upon remand and jury trial in June of 2009, allowed RJR to completely flout the direct instructions of the appeals court ... those being that the case be tried "consistent with" the appeals court decision with regard to IC, and specifically that the case NOT include any accusation by RJR that Star intentionally withheld information from the USPTO in prosecuting its patents?


    Will TSS be explaining how the Garbis court, in the remanded jury trial, suppressed evidence of infringement on Star's patents by RJR; evidence so stated and declared by the very law firm that is defending RJR in the instant suit; and evidence that was given to RJR at RJR's request from them all the way back in 2001 ... the first year Star alleged infringement?


    In other words, will TSS be explaining that RJR's own firm of defense attorneys in the infringement case in question, where Star has brought infringement charges against RJR, told RJR, after RJR briefed them on what RJR was doing in its curing operations, that indeed RJR was clearly infringing on Star's patents (patents recently confirmed by the USPTO)?


    Is TSS going to relate the fact that, once again (as it did in the first, precedent-setting rebuke of the lower court in this matter), the appeals court decision is taking an extraordinarily long time to issue after the January 2011 oral argument? Will TSS be explaining that this is an indication that the appeals court is likely, once again, writing another precedent-setting decision in the appeal of the remand trial?


    Is TSS going to relate that, for the appeals court to find in favor of upholding the verdict for RJR in the June 2009 jury trial in the Garbis court, the appeals court would almost surely NOT set any precedent ... and that they would likely have issued the appeals decision a few weeks after the January 2011 oral argument in the matter? Do you or those at TSS know anything about appellate procedure?


    Can anyone explain why TSS would choose now, just prior to the issuance of the appeals court findings, to try to castigate Star's conduct in financial matters ... since the decision will weigh considerably on the financial status of the company? Same question (why right now?) with regard to the fact that many clinical studies regarding the establishment of the effectiveness of the newly discovered property (anti-inflammatory) of anatabine will be issuing in the near coming months?


    Are you, or is TSS, aware that the likely outcome of the clinical trial on the effectiveness of anatabine as an anti-inflammatory is known, because the trial has already been done on an informal basis (because anatabine is not a "new drug", is of known safety due to its ingestion by billions of tobacco users for centuries, etc. ... and thus has ALREADY been tried)? In other words, are you, or is TSS, aware that the trial in question, "the Flint study", is really just a "showcase" confirmation of the stated fact (that anatabine is a new anti-inflammatory)?


    Will TSS be explaining the fact that the process ... or part of it, up to now ... that is described in Mr. Williams' tobacco curing patents has revolutionized the way the tobacco industry, one of the biggest in the U.S. in terms of revenue for decades, cures tobacco?


    Will TSS explain that the fact that it is indeed Williams to whom the credit belongs for this ... because the USPTO just upheld Williams' patents as having priority over the other candidate-process ... RJR's so-called Peele patent? Will TSS be explaining that the last step, the very last step, in affirmation of the priority of the Williams tobacco processes is just about to issue from the appeals court, as discussed above?


    Will TSS be explaining the possible global health impact of a new, inexpensive, almost-side-effect-free, highly effective anti-inflammatory medication called anatabine ... a medication that may actually extend the length of life, as well as its quality?


    Will TSS be explaining why an investor, or indeed anyone, should consider what Mr. Williams did or did not do in the long past, when evaluating the worth of these discoveries/patents to Star Scientific, which is the exclusive licensee of them all?


    Will TSS be explaining how, for example, the notorious anti-Semitism of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison affects the worth to companies, or the usefulness of, the mass-assembled automobile, or the light bulb, the phonograph, etc.?


    Will TSS be explaining how any alleged misdeeds in his long past will affect the worth of Williams' just-confirmed, industry-changing tobacco curing patents, or the worth of game-changing pharmaceutical patents from Mr. Williams, and others like Dr. DeLorenzo and Dr. Curtis Wright ... all exclusively licensed to Star Scientific?


    Can you or your friends at TSS cite anything significant overall in the above narrative that is not true and factual, insofar as anything thereabove is a statement of fact? Can you or TSS explain how any significant portion of the above explanation of the saga of the Star v. RJR matter, and the huge negative financial effect it has had on the company, is the fault of any person or persons at Star Scientific?


    Can you or TSS propose a credible alternative set of actions that Star could have taken, given the normal progress in the infringement matter against RJR up to November of 2004, and then its sudden perversion into an what could easily be interpreted as a vendetta against Star by a new judge, that would have resulted in a significantly better financial outcome to this date?


    Remember, you are saying (and approving of the fact) that TSS will be attacking the company for financial failures, and basing part of that on, apparently, alleged misdeeds by Williams in his long past (prior to the mere existence of the company Star Scientific). To so attack the company, you and/or TSS will have to provide a reasonable alternative set of actions UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES that clearly would have provided a much better financial outcome to date.


    You and/or TSS will have to explain how the actual events ... betrayal by a partner major business firm, and unfounded, unexplained delays by a judge
    in righteous patent litigation ... that have caused Star's present financial condition are the fault of Star Scientific. Plus, again, you and/or TSS will have to show how there is any way to relate those facts and occurrences with anything Williams did in his long past.


    In other words, you and TSS will need to refute the factual explanation I have provided, step by step. In doing so, you or TSS will have to provide facts ... FACTS ... that clearly show that Star, which had a revenue of $220M or so in 2000, made significant errors that caused the essentially five year delay (and STILL counting) in the litigation process that was introduced by the sudden change of judges in the case. You and TSS will also have what appears to be the insurmountable task of showing how any alleged actions of Mr. Williams long before Star Scientific was even founded affected that litigation process.


    It seems quite clear that neither TSS, nor you, will be able to rely on any information about the personal or business background of Mr. Williams' (or indeed that of anyone else, with the possible exception of the judge) in explaining how Star Scientific is to be faulted for the now six plus year delay in the litigation process, introduced by judge Garbis, regarding infringement and RJR. I challenge you or TSS to show otherwise.


    Again, then, can you or TSS provide any credible explanation as to how Star could have prosecuted its protection of what is clearly, now (thanks to USPTO), its IP, and could have somehow avoided the overwhelming cause of its need to finance years of operations ... the tremendous, and I believe calculated, delay by judicial misdeed, if not mischief, that appears clearly and completely out of the control of Star Scientific?


    Finally, and crucially, will TSS be providing me and others a chance to comment on, and to refute directly ... their/your allegations, so tenuous as they are (at best), such as was afforded you in this forum? Or will, on the other hand, the TSS hatchet job be nothing more than a flaming pot of lies tossed down from a presumably unassailable, protective "tower"?


    In other words Mr. Beck, will TSS allow ITS little story to be examined "in loco" ... meaning in the proper place ... in the light of actual facts? I'm betting "no". What do YOU think?


    And so, Mr. Beck, may I presume (from your very own words and "analysis" above) that, were you an investor, you would be looking for companies that do not change, and that you would pay little attention to the actual possible market worth of their IP (patents and trade secrets) and products, but base your investment decisions by emphasizing a look into the backgrounds of those who produced the IP?
    May I say, then, that, if you are an investor, I for one certainly have no envy of your methods or your portfolio. Good luck with that : )
    30 Jun 2011, 06:05 AM Reply Like
  • Harry Beck
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
    The Street Sweeper spoke today and the article is on Seeking Alpha. I could not answer you earlier since I do not work for that organization and have no access to their reports before they are published, It seems you are part of the report, which insinuates this is all part of a pump and dump to get the share price above $5. At least that is their claim. I just see an overvalued stock.
    30 Jun 2011, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • justhinkin
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
    Dear valueinvestor:


    You can denigrate a source ... but you can't argue with the facts.


    The worth ... the face value ... of a fact has nothing to do, ultimately, with the backgrounds of all of those who reported them.


    Attempts to "doom" facts by attacking those who report them are fated to the same, unsuccessful end as are attempts to impugn the worth of IP by attacking those who originated it.


    There is no such thing as "original sin", and guilt by association therewith, in the world of fact ... nor in the world of intellectual property. People put away their bibles and such when they are trying facts, and making use of IP.


    Have you ever bought a lottery ticket? If so, did you stop to consider the nefarious reputation/background of the inventor ... Casanova? Do you think anyone else does? I didn't think so.


    Bernie Madoff undoubtedly uttered some true statements in his lifetime. His utterance of them does not make them any less true.


    When people try to force confusion of facts with the present source of their utterance, or confusion of the worth of IP with the background of its originator, there is most definitely something wrong ... but the problem lies with those seeking such confusion, and their motivations for so seeking.
    30 Jun 2011, 08:01 AM Reply Like
  • Labman01
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
    For everything thats been said in negative response in regards to Dr. John Faessel report, I have one question at issue. Why would R J Renyolds, who was caught doing their own experimental research on Star Scientific claimed patent, prolong a patent infringement lawsuit for 10 years, unless they had also found a miracle substance in the tobacco leaf? It would seem to me that RJR would of exitited this lawsuit quickly and quietly on the advice of their Council. R J R has taken a tremendous hit, as we know with their U S sales, but continue sales overseas continue to climb. Here is a company of enormous size, with Billions of $ still out there from families that have lost family members from tobacco used, and at the sametime pursue a lawsuit over what could end up costing RJR Billions of $ more for 10 years of potential sales, Attorney fees , and the mere fact from keeping this new found miricle substance from people that needed it? R J R of course has the tobacco already, and then discovering what Star already had discovered? Please understand, I'm not disputing what you and the others are claiming, and I can guarentee you that all of you are way over my head in regards to the Stock Market. I just don't understand why RJR after doing their own research wanted this patent so despereley, unless they also knew something very big was hidden in the tobacco leave that could change the lives of millions that suffer. Just a Rookie here that's curious. Thanks for everyone's input
    8 Jun 2012, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • jcmeredith1
    , contributor
    Comments (61) | Send Message
    Hi Lab,


    Your post indicates that you see RJR involved in research of a "miracle substance" in tobacco. RJR has done some pharma research using tobacco, but they have found nothing to compare to Star's discovery of anatabine citrate (RCP-06).


    So... Star's patent infringement lawsuit against RJR and the "discovery" of pure anatabine are two distinct things.


    RJR is not trying to "copy" Star's work with anatabine (so far at least) but Star contends that RJR is using a patented curing process without paying royalties. Star signed a comprehensive licensing deal with Brown & Williamson in 1999 calling for million$ in royalties to be paid to Star. Star showed B&W a curing process which results in tobacco without any known tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA's) a known carcinogen.


    RJR bought B&W and just decided not to pay. That is what the lawsuit is about: tobacco curing patents which Star claims RJR is using without paying a royalty.
    13 Jun 2012, 03:00 PM Reply Like
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.