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

Disclaimer

  • "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_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« GlaxoSmithKline Files Amicus Brief in Amgen v. Sanofi | Main | U.S. Government Files Amicus Brief in Amgen v. Sanofi »

March 21, 2023

Comments

The biggest hole I see in this argument is that the “innovation” lies in the validation of a disease theory (e.g. an antibody that competitively binds to PCSK9 receptors can treat high LDL cholesterol). That is increasingly true with biologics. But genus patents do not enable that utility, and if they were endorsed, they could be used by unsuccessful pharmas to discourage competitors who sought to validate the same or related disease theories.

Ideally, bad circuit law on utility and how-to-use enablement (eg Krimmel, Nelson, Fujisawa, Brana, etc.) would be overruled, so that pharma patents would maximally encourage advancing first-in-class candidates to Phase 2 and 3 trials. Then a genus-wide patent would likely be appropriate.

Kyle: while validating disease theories is always a part of pharma development, I think the issue is focused on the molecule and how to protect it. As an example, the basis of antacids is to modify the function of the proton pump in the stomach. This can be achieved by omeprazole or lansoprozole, both distinct molecules having the desired clinical effect. A genus claim to either does not affect patenting or commercializing the other due to the different chemical species within each genus (i.e., they do not overlap).

Very different situation for antibodies, where (in the strictest sense) an antibody having a valine at a particular position in its amino acid sequence is a different antibody than one having an isoleucine at that position, wherein the difference in two molecules having tens of thousands of atoms is three atoms (-CH2-). While this should be addressed under the doctrine of equivalents there is inconsistent application of the doctrine under the best of circumstances.

Amgen's problem is that they claimed their antibody completely by function, which would have been fine 50 years ago because that was the only way to do it (and generally it would be antisera comprising a plurality of antibodies raised to an antigen rather than a monoclonal antibody). But the ability to define antibodies by amino acid sequence has actually reduced the scope of claims to antibodies, an attempted remedy for his being Amgen's claims.

Thanks for the comments.

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