tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7232542277132640677..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: UPDATE: Birss J refuses permission to appeal in Genentech's Herceptin battleVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47288640231300294812014-06-19T12:08:09.630+01:002014-06-19T12:08:09.630+01:00It looks like Genentech are seeking permission to ...It looks like Genentech are <a href="http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20141800" rel="nofollow">seeking permission to appeal.</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1574475482824755982014-05-24T10:24:11.432+01:002014-05-24T10:24:11.432+01:00I wonder if Birss is being influenced by Section 3...I wonder if Birss is being influenced by Section 3D of the Indian Patents Act which prevents evergreening of pharmaceutical inventions by prohibiting patenting new forms of a drug unless it has enhanced efficacy. He may have secretly or subconsciously decided to be harsh on dosage regimen inventions as a result.<br />[This is meant to be a light-hearted comment]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57171496906374508122014-05-23T16:37:10.011+01:002014-05-23T16:37:10.011+01:00Very good Jeremy Very good Jeremy Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17764784019624155442014-05-23T16:20:15.083+01:002014-05-23T16:20:15.083+01:00No, my Kat colleague meant "peaked" sinc...No, my Kat colleague meant "peaked" since it referred to the interest of readers, once piqued, reaching some form of climax or crescendo.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29421867125204335052014-05-23T16:13:48.328+01:002014-05-23T16:13:48.328+01:00"The judgment peaked some readers interests ....<i>"The judgment peaked some readers interests ..."</i><br /><br />I think you mean "piqued", unless it's a clever reference to the chromatography in the '455 patent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71463241029357689592014-05-23T12:08:50.439+01:002014-05-23T12:08:50.439+01:00I don't know how strict TRIPS is about circums...I don't know how strict TRIPS is about circumstances when appeals should be allowed, but presumably its fair to not allow appeal when a new argument is raised.<br /><br />I suspect Genentech decided not to argue that 8/6 was special/magic at first instance because the spec had no data to support it, and with Birss focusing on plausibility of the spec, such an argument would not have worked anyway. However it would have been interesting to see how Birss would have handled a situation where the method gives a special result, but is obvious to try. Such things can succeed at the EPO, but not normally in the UK.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82097376067643677492014-05-23T11:28:10.132+01:002014-05-23T11:28:10.132+01:00"That is to say that there was some magic in ..."That is to say that there was some magic in the 8/6 dosing regimen"<br /><br />I really don't understand that comment. It sounds like Genentech were saying that the actual thing claimed has to be obvious. Isn't that what Conor says is required?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com