tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4101374820937037404..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The Lyrica patent dispute – part the first - validityVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29356441553512997242015-11-12T16:48:23.383+00:002015-11-12T16:48:23.383+00:00UK institutions (e.g universities) have full entit...UK institutions (e.g universities) have full entitlement to inventions they have made with public funding. What they have to do to secure those rights is quite complicated, but I shall try to summarise:<br /><br />Step 1. File a patent application.<br />Step 2. Obtain grant of said patent application.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72321487371650716152015-11-12T14:12:51.751+00:002015-11-12T14:12:51.751+00:00Re THE US anon
The fallacy argument you mentione...Re THE US anon <br /><br />The fallacy argument you mentioned has not been defeated. What the US allows is exactly the solution many observers have been waiting for in Europe. Give public institutions, be it universities, health institutes, etc... patent rights to the research that has been publicly funded. That is my opinion the right approach. I was not aware that is the US approach. Always glad to learn from colleagues on the other side of the pond.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44776335388233427442015-11-12T12:35:39.590+00:002015-11-12T12:35:39.590+00:00The fallacy argument of "Is it sensible that ...The fallacy argument of "<i>Is it sensible that taxpayers' money is directed towards that then benefit solely from the products obtained thereof? I don't think so.</i>"<br /><br />has been SOUNDLY defeated in the US.<br /><br />RE: the move to allow Universities to obtain patents that they will own stemming from government supplied grants.<br /><br />Those numbers are clear and unmistakable as to which system works in the real world.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89700260221404236572015-11-12T12:30:14.611+00:002015-11-12T12:30:14.611+00:00...and yet another fallacy in use:
"It's......and yet another fallacy in use:<br /><br />"<i>It's a tricky thing, to get right the balance between inventors and their competitors, such that patents promote rather than stifle technical progress in the useful arts.</i>"<br /><br />Patent block.<br /><br />That is what they do.<br /><br />The ability to promote comes (in no uncertain part), <b>BECAUSE</b> one is blocked.<br /><br />When faced with the option of:<br />a) paying what the rights holder wants (if the rights holder is even willing to accept payment - <b>which is part of the rights holder's set of rights</b>), or<br />b) doing without, or<br /><br />and this is critical<br /><br />c) inventing a new way around the block<br /><br />WAY WAY WAY too many people forget the adage that "necessity is the mother of invention" and think "oh, well, I am blocked - how "<i>unfair</i>"<br /><br />The answer, my friends, is in STRONG patent rights - embrace the nature of what a patent is, and please, please, please, stop the emotive "that's unfair" attempts at weakening patents. THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8148400407747246812015-11-12T12:22:41.423+00:002015-11-12T12:22:41.423+00:00MaxDrei,
Ever with your mind closed...
Above you...MaxDrei,<br /><br />Ever with your mind closed...<br /><br />Above you state "<i> they can not only patent it straighaway but also exploit it, straightaway</i>"<br /><br />Just.<br />Not.<br />So.<br /><br />Leastwise, in the U.S., the notion of a negative right is Supreme, and follow-on patents do NOT disturb the original right. AFTER that first right slips into the public domain is it fair game for anyone. But <b>only</b> after that time of protection.<br /><br />Is this concept not understood? Is this concept not understandable?THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-14377149449380911802015-11-12T11:29:42.570+00:002015-11-12T11:29:42.570+00:00The UK Bill takes 5 minutes to read. Feast yourse...The UK Bill takes 5 minutes to read. Feast yourself.<br /><br />The two articles are nothing more than old rhetoric. Everyone knows taxpayer-funded research (at least that of the NIH) is high. But, to use my least favourite expression: the story is not 'on point'.<br /><br />As you are clearly unable to answer any of my questions it is clear that it is you (yes, you!) that is lacking in understanding.<br /><br />Hey Ho.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8585583660428232432015-11-12T10:43:21.461+00:002015-11-12T10:43:21.461+00:00@anonyous 10:20:00 I cannot and therefore will not...@anonyous 10:20:00 I cannot and therefore will not comment on a bill of the UK parliament. I am not familiar neither with the British legislative process nor with this bill in particular.<br /><br />What I can say however is that data shows that big pharma companies fund their risky research with taxpayers money and concentrate their own investment into sure gains.<br /><br />http://www.economist.com/news/business/21584307-new-book-points-out-big-role-governments-play-creating-innovative-businesses<br /><br />http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/11/pfizer-bid-astrazeneca-big-pharma-rotten-banks<br /><br />This book is full of references for your perusal. <br /><br />Is it sensible that taxpayers' money is directed towards that then benefit solely from the products obtained thereof? I don't think so. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58453632462536019892015-11-12T10:30:49.255+00:002015-11-12T10:30:49.255+00:00Six months ago I killed plans to develop a product...Six months ago I killed plans to develop a product. The project has died. The company is winding up. I didn't make this decision. I didn't have power to cast a vote. The result just happened with no opinion from me one way or another over whether investment should be made in the project.<br /><br />The only part I played was to advise the potential investors that they would have patent exclusivity for a certain period. The regulatory advice was that they would have no data exclusivity. I can only guess that the investors felt the period of monopoly was insufficient for them to consider the risk worth taking.<br /><br />Next time I'll mention the wisdom of MaxDrei, and 09:18 Anon. Next time their decision may be different? Still, there is a chance to Max's friends and the public bodies 09:18 anon refers to will take this project on for the good of the suffering?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9638874186203115782015-11-12T10:20:23.547+00:002015-11-12T10:20:23.547+00:00p.a. to Anon at 09:18
Please describe how the go...p.a. to Anon at 09:18<br /><br /><br />Please describe how the government sponsored product development covered by the UK Private member's bill that has just failed to get through parliament would have worked in practice. Costs, decision-making processes, risk-assessment, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65731686167757162182015-11-12T10:17:57.916+00:002015-11-12T10:17:57.916+00:00To 09:18:
1. Please provide the evidence to back ...To 09:18:<br /><br />1. Please provide the evidence to back you opinion on financing. Figures should compare with the R&D spent by companies - Pfizer AZ, GSK, Merck Lilly, etc.<br /><br />2. Please provide examples of new drugs that have been developed without protection.<br /><br />3. Please provide examples of new drugs that have come to market without investment from companies such as those mention in 1.<br /><br />4. I hope the number of examples is significant in comparison to those stemming from private investment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65116866429294666592015-11-12T09:18:34.502+00:002015-11-12T09:18:34.502+00:00Anonymous @17:12:00 shows a complete lack of under...Anonymous @17:12:00 shows a complete lack of understanding where and by whom R&D is done nowadays. Most of the money, brains and infrastructure come from public funds through grants, government contracts and (at least in Europe) public university research. To assume that no new drugs will come to the market would there be no full protection is disingenuous and not factually correct. One could even argue why so many drugs are privately patented when they have been publicly funded? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41263007354185669752015-11-12T08:48:01.760+00:002015-11-12T08:48:01.760+00:00"But if you deny me absolute Stoffschutz well..."But if you deny me absolute Stoffschutz well then, you just might never get any more new drugs, ever again. It's up to you"<br /><br />eeerrrmmmm yes.<br /><br />second point - too long to copy and quote. Ans No.<br /><br />Several reasons why not:<br /><br />There is an assumption they can patent their new indication right away. Lyrica (UK) managed to find non-obvious claims, but Viagra (UK) didn't. There is a good reason why it is less than likely to be the normal case. Third parties will look at the published activities of the molecule and will then use publicly available knowledge to identify a potential new use. E.g. compound X is proven to have some activity as an antagonist of receptor Y. According to Prof. B.I.G in last months "Science for Nerd's" he has demonstrated a link between receptor Y and disease Z and has postulated that antagonists of Y will be suitable for treating the disease. etc.<br /><br />Compound X bombs in its clinical trials after many millions being spent. The originator company drops it like a lead balloon because they don't have guaranteed investment for new indications. Other companies see the compound has been dropped and make the rational decision not to touch it with a barge pole. Clearly there is something wrong with the thing. Not worth the risk.<br /><br />Take a look at the recent Private members bill that didn't make its way through the UK parliament re. repurposing of off-patent medicines. Nice idea but had no substance as to how it would have operated and would never have worked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17475095412343712232015-11-12T06:31:55.249+00:002015-11-12T06:31:55.249+00:00At yesterday, anonymous wrote:
"Plenty of dr...At yesterday, anonymous wrote:<br /><br />"Plenty of drugs have fallen down in clinical trials for their first-patented utility and then been developed for other indications only because they have compound per se protection"<br /><br />which strikes me as the Don Corleone argument, namely, if you grant me absolute Stoffschutz you might get some new drugs. But if you deny me absolute Stoffschutz well then, you just might never get any more new drugs, ever again. It's up to you.<br /><br />Is there a counter-argument, namely, that a purpose-limited claim will not only give the original inventor enough protection to recover his investment but also will stimulate other researchers to explore, without delay, the efficacy of the new molecule for other medical indications because, if they find one, they can not only patent it straighaway but also exploit it, straightaway, which is good for the respective inventors and good for the public and good for the patent attorneys too.<br /><br />It's a tricky thing, to get right the balance between inventors and their competitors, such that patents promote rather than stifle technical progress in the useful arts. MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47443324337701356822015-11-11T21:27:44.828+00:002015-11-11T21:27:44.828+00:00Freudian slip, Max.Freudian slip, Max.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-49235362102773597942015-11-11T17:12:19.782+00:002015-11-11T17:12:19.782+00:00Agrevo is a different issue.
What happened in old...Agrevo is a different issue.<br /><br />What happened in olden days is not relevant. There use to be a statutory ban in many places on compound patents. Not being over 80 I can't explain the rationale, but times have moved on. They may well move back, but it is not a political argument. Without adequate protection investment in R&D will not be made. Plenty of drugs have fallen down in clinical trials for their first-patented utility and then been developed for other indications only because they have compound per se protection. I'm sure most people will not be able to name many drugs protected by second medical use claims. The history of the Lyrica and Viagra patents a lesson on the subject.<br /><br />If Max or US anon had patented the first ever photocopier device, would they have object of if someone manufactured copies and sold them for other purposes (scanning for example), irrespective of off-label photocopying use? No, didn't think so. Glad we are now all in agreement.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36450387998438756532015-11-11T15:51:55.363+00:002015-11-11T15:51:55.363+00:00My, don't you have to watch like a hawk the op...My, don't you have to watch like a hawk the operations of the infernal spell "checkers"? Otherwise you will miss their depradations, like (above) changing "lack of support" into "lake of support". Sorry about that folks.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65130525964967376492015-11-11T14:39:09.410+00:002015-11-11T14:39:09.410+00:00There is nothing sacred about "absolute Stoff...There is nothing sacred about "absolute Stoffschutz" claims to "Molecule X" per se. It isn't just India that has doubts. Until 1968 (as I understand it) Germany also declined to issue such claims. See <br />https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoffschutz<br /><br />The current culture, of giving Big Pharma everything it asks for might not last for ever.<br /><br />Imagine a Party at the EPO, where you gain entry if you have invented something. Novelty isn't enough to get in. You have to be inventive too. Big Pharma rings the doorbell. What's your invention then? Molecule X. Is that by itself enough to get in? No.<br /><br />But, says Big Pharma, I have more than that. I have a technical effect. I have utility. Now we have a serious debate.<br /><br />One might say that the technical effect runs through the entire scope of the claim. So there ought not to be a problem with Agrevo-type obviousness.<br /><br />How about clarity though? Are there in the claim all the features needed to solve the problem? If the problem is effectively to treat disease Y, perhaps the claim should be to a medicament to treat disease Y. Giving the patient one molecule won't work, will it?<br /><br />To repeat: Inventors should get a scope of protection commensurate with their contribution to the art. The UK Patents Act of 1949 had many grounds of invalidity that we don't see in the EPC. Grounds like lake of support, specifically, lack of "fair basis". Such notions of "fair basis" are inherent in any patent system, regardless whether they are announeced explicitly as a statutory ground of revocation.<br /><br />That's all I'm saying. MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20996441825219469782015-11-11T12:53:35.656+00:002015-11-11T12:53:35.656+00:00Just to throw into the mix here, for nucleic acids...Just to throw into the mix here, for nucleic acids they must be 'functional' when infringment happens of the product claim according to the CJEU in Case C-428/08 ("Monsanto v. Cefetra"). So that is a half-way house to requiring the relevant activity to be part of infringement.Cardboardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45824451911704004242015-11-10T22:01:52.620+00:002015-11-10T22:01:52.620+00:00Suleman, the heavier than air flying machines are ...Suleman, the heavier than air flying machines are also not a good analogy for molecules. In any case, Biogen was a product-by-process claim, said product being known. A 'NEW chemical entity' is by definition 'NEW'.<br /><br />I don't know why I am responding to US anon, but....<br /><br />The Indian patent act only allows certain pharma inventions to be patented if there is evidence of improved efficacy. This will require clinical data, even where the improvement has other unexpected, non-clinical benefits. I'm sure Max agrees with this being a mechanical person.<br /><br />Suleman probably also agrees being an attorney for that hard-done-by biotech field.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28326180227896619512015-11-10T20:06:29.481+00:002015-11-10T20:06:29.481+00:00Max, I didn't quote that a patent claim needs ...Max, I didn't quote that a patent claim needs to comply with Rule 42(b)(i)(a)X of the XPC either. I'm not sure many people attempt to patent new compounds that have no possible utility, so you can rest assured that inherent in my argument was a biological effect of the 'NEW' compound.<br /><br />Try speaking to the chemistry attorney again and he/she will explain how molecules are nothing like photocopiers. The analogy there would be an improvement to the photocopier would be equivalent to a new molecule. Try asking US anon to explain it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31459371722364550472015-11-10T16:08:46.157+00:002015-11-10T16:08:46.157+00:00Anonymous at 22:23,
I am more than willing to lea...Anonymous at 22:23,<br /><br />I am more than willing to learn what it is that you think I am lacking from my specific Art-Field deficit.<br /><br />Let me see your reasoning, and not just your conclusion, please.<br /><br />MaxDrei at 13:19,<br /><br />Read my post above - you are falling to the fallacy of not understanding the baseline view of what a negative right means. No one is saying that all follow-on improvement inventions belong to the first inventor. No one. But that is a far cry from saying that any follow-on inventor has a <i>positive</i> right to that which the follow-on inventor is improving. They absolutely do not.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41823606874727274812015-11-10T14:09:25.675+00:002015-11-10T14:09:25.675+00:00MaxDrei,
Agreeing with you, Biogen said: ‘The Wr...MaxDrei, <br /><br />Agreeing with you, Biogen said: ‘The Wright Brothers showed that heavier-than-air flight was possible, but that did not entitle them to a monopoly of heavier-than-air flying machines.’<br /><br />[http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1996/18.html]Suleman Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18171832789491858471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34679116640439665842015-11-10T13:19:45.471+00:002015-11-10T13:19:45.471+00:00Last time I looked, novelty was not enough to warr...Last time I looked, novelty was not enough to warrant the grant of a patent. Last time I discussed the patentability of "Molecule X" with a chemistry patent attorney, a new molecule per see isn't inventive till you specify the effects you get with it. There is no "invention" in announcing a new compound per se.<br /><br />Even though we speak of "planting the flag" when we debate novelty, I find it irksome to compare patentable subject matter with landing on an asteroid. Not the same thing. The analogy is misleading. Just because somebody has invented the photocopier does not mean he can assume ownership of all the photocopier improvements that emerge in the following 20 years. MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62852935506574354402015-11-10T12:33:31.509+00:002015-11-10T12:33:31.509+00:00I do, because what you are talking about is confin...I do, because what you are talking about is confining the inventor to less than their contribution. If the USA find, land on and plant their flag on a new asteroid, they are entitled to the precious metals it contains, not just the right to have it named after them. An inventor who has "invented" a "new" (as in, ever before existed) compound should be entitled to all rights in the compound for the initial patent term, irrespective of the uses others later identify.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42969762067525183072015-11-10T09:23:48.321+00:002015-11-10T09:23:48.321+00:00A quick read through Idenix v Gilead from 1 Decemb...A quick read through Idenix v Gilead from 1 December 2014 confirms that Arnold indeed believes that a claim to a compound per se should <b>sometimes</b> be read with a use (i.e. biological activity) limitation. However, I would say that it is clear from paragraphs 304 to 306 of that judgement that he does not necessarily think that this should always be the case.<br /><br />Interestingly, the parties in Idenix v Gilead agreed that a use limitation should be read into the claims. On the part of the patentee, this was presumably for reasons relating to validity.Proof of the puddingnoreply@blogger.com