tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3151545489190468904..comments2024-03-29T06:53:23.405+00:00Comments on The IPKat: A triple dose of defeat - three antibiotic patents of Cubist revoked in one trialVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-33042612512123995862016-09-15T11:49:40.584+01:002016-09-15T11:49:40.584+01:00Dear Hugh
Thank you for your comment.
In one sen...Dear Hugh<br /><br />Thank you for your comment.<br /><br />In one sense the decision shows that the patent does not need to enable a method of manufacturing the “wrong” isomer of daptomycin incorrectly given in the literature, because the argument put forward by Hospira were rejected.<br /><br />But the argument goes as follows – if “daptomycin” as referred to in the patent actually means the incorrect structure in the literature (let’s call it “epi-daptomycin”), then the claimed method cannot be performed, because epi-daptomycin does not exist and the skilled person does not know how to make it. This was rejected because “daptomycin” was held not to refer to the incorrect structure epi-daptomycin, but to the real natural product daptomycin.<br /><br />A purification claim is a process claim. I think it is correct as a matter of law that to be enabled, the starting materials in a process have to be available. Otherwise, the process as claimed cannot be carried out. A patent has to enable the invention as claimed, not just the “clever” bit of it. If the claim starts from an unobtainable or unachievable starting point, then the patent is insufficient. If I claim “a method of purifying unobtainium…” but unobtainium is, well, unobtainable, then I do not have an enabled invention.<br /><br />I hope that this is answering the question that you were asking, and makes sense.<br /><br />Best wishes<br /><br />Darren<br />Darren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43869424531012742912016-09-14T22:51:44.287+01:002016-09-14T22:51:44.287+01:00Dear Darren. With regards to Cubist's argument...Dear Darren. With regards to Cubist's arguments for insufficiency, do you know why the patents would need to enable a method for manufacturing (L/D-Asn) daptomycin when they detail purification methods and a dosing regimen? Thanks<br />Hughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45418188030350297702016-09-02T11:34:03.273+01:002016-09-02T11:34:03.273+01:00Dear DWPM
Thank you for your comment. The pH issue...Dear DWPM<br />Thank you for your comment. The pH issue is actually quite complex, and in this short post it was addressed very briefly, which glossed over some of both the interest and the complexity of the point in this case. In the end I decided it was worth a full post of its own, and so I have just written on it here:<br />http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/what-ph-closer-look-at-hospira-v-cubist.html<br />I would be interested to know any further thoughts you may have.<br />Best wishes<br />DarrenDarren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62156933416579237822016-09-01T08:33:34.210+01:002016-09-01T08:33:34.210+01:00I'm surprised at the lack of inventive step fo...I'm surprised at the lack of inventive step for the pH-changing method of micelle formation, or at least I would not agree with the reasoning as presented here. A skilled person would know that a micelle forms through hydrophobic interactions of a fatty tail part, and methanol (the known method) changes this interaction. If a skilled person were afraid of using methanol, he or she would perhaps try ethanol or isopropylalcohol. Known alternatives include altering the salt concentration of the buffers, or using still other cosolvents.<br /><br />Altering the pH does not mess with the fatty tail, it messes with the head (the charges on the peptide part that are not the fatty tail). So it goes via a different mechanism of influencing micelle formation, ignoring the tail. Its success is not at all Obvious because various intermediary charge states might lead to various aggregation states. If I were on the 047-side, I'd be pretty annoyed by the reasoning of why it wouldn't be inventive, because the reasoning appears to gloss over some low level lab practice.DWPMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59288041031929644222016-08-31T17:21:39.850+01:002016-08-31T17:21:39.850+01:00So, the researcher in your final illustration: is ...So, the researcher in your final illustration: is it Balz, or could it possibly be Miao?Peter Smithnoreply@blogger.com