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


« Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich's Opposition to CVC's Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 3 in Interference No. 106,132 | Main | Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich's Opposition to CVC's Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 4 in Interference No. 106,132 »

March 21, 2022


"Steve Bates... argued that the proposal would 'have a chilling impact on investment into the small companies that have been at the heart of the solutions to COVID-19'... ."

Really? How? We are talking about IN, ZA, and the like. How much "capital needed to develop next generation of vaccines" actually comes from these markets? At a first approximation, I would say "none."

The big joke here is that neither Biontech nor ModeRNA ever entered the ZA national phase. ZA does not even have patents to waive, and yet it is fighting for a patent waiver. Why bother?

This compromise is the biggest nothing-burger imaginable. No industry is threatened in the least by the proposal (which is, of course, all to the good). BIO should be pleased that the whole thing is a toothless, meaningless waste of time. Why continue to oppose it at this point?

Mr. DeLassus continues his crusade to be obtuse (and will no doubt continue to be "surprised" as he notes at this location: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/03/16/latest-wto-waiver-compromise-text-targets-covid-vaccine-patents-draws-criticism-sides/id=147576/ )

His comment of "How much 'capital needed to develop next generation of vaccines' actually comes from these markets? At a first approximation, I would say 'none.'" is a tone deaf response as to WHY the IP waiver (and yes, please, read that as more than merely a patent waiver) was being pursued in the first instance.

I suppose this is what happens when one only wants to speak their own speaking point, and has no interest in gaining a larger view of the issues.

Will Greg learn?

Call me:

Greg: I think the game is not COVID patents per se (although a general weakening of patent protection globally would fit the agendas of IN, ZA, and BR (and others) in rolling back the GATT/TRIPS regime embodied in the WTO).

The bigger fish is getting access to the trade secrets that underlie the vaccines (mostly having to do with delivery agents). Once the "patent waiver" permits access to these (which it does; see footnote 2 in the waiver proposal disclosed by BIO) then there will be a mechanism for countries to get this info from regulatory filings for any drug.

There are alternatives to this scenario but should it come to pass how long will it take for Western pharma companies to conclude that "the game is no longer worth the candle" )to paraphrase Sequenom's CEO in another context)?

Thanks for the comment.

Dr. Noonan, that also paraphrases some of Cleveland Clinic's decision on its patent aims.

And the world is worse off for that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 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 30 31