About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« USPTO News: USPTO e-Commerce Update | Main | BIO Issues Statement Regarding USPTO Performance Report »

December 06, 2007


Why do all accounts of this issue fail to state that the lucentis is a monoclonal antibody fragment derived from the same parent? Anyone reading this story should be informed that lucentis is in bascially a portion of avastin.

Dear :

You're right, of course, but I'm not sure that is particularly relevant. Avastin clearly works, and at a much lower price, but was not put through the same clinical trials as Lucentis (that's the FDA piece), and NEI is trying to do a study to show the two drugs have equivalent safety and efficacy. Even if they were totally different molecules, the point is a cheaper, anecdotally as-effective alternative exists. And the story is the company's attempts (justified or not) to have AMD patients use the more expensive one.

Thanks for the comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29