Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘patents’


How the ACLU Won the Fight Against Patenting Genes: Article and video on  the History of the Issue of Gene Patents

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

 

please see the TED talk below on how ACLU took on the Gene Patenting Industry:

Tania Simoncelli – How I took on the gene patent industry — and won – Ted Talks 2016

This fight started with the patenting of the BRCA1/2 gene mutants, which increase the risk of breast/ovarian cancer in women who harbor these mutation as well as their offspring, which would be the basis for genetic testing services offered by Myriad Genetics.

However, as seen below, these patent fights and the patenting of DNA has been around since the mid 1970’s, with the advent of cloning and other molecular biology techniques.

PATENTS IN GENOMICS AND HUMAN GENETICS

Robert Cook-Deegan and Christopher Heaney in Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2010 Sep 22; 11: 383–425.

In April 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted the 50,000th U.S. patent that entered the DNA Patent Database at Georgetown University. That database includes patents that make claims mentioning terms specific to nucleic acids (e.g., DNA, RNA, nucleotide, plasmid, etc.) (64). The specificity of many terms unique to nucleic acid structures makes it possible to monitor patents that correspond to and arise largely from research in genetics and genomics. Patents have been a part of the story of the rise of genetics and genomics since the 1970s, and not just because they can be counted but also because science and commerce have been deeply intertwined, one chapter in the story of modern biotechnology in medicine, agriculture, energy, environment, and other economic sectors. The first DNA patents were granted in the 1970s, but numbers surged in the mid-1990s as molecular genetic techniques began to produce patentable inventions.

This database (Delphion Patent Database) can be reached at (http://www.delphion.com).

From Cook-Deegan, R. and C. Heany. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2010 Sep 22; 11: 383–425.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is nihms218000f1.jpg

U.S. Patents: DNA Patents and Patent Applications by Year, 1984–2008. The DNA Patent Database contains patents obtained by searching the Delphion Patent Database (http://www.delphion.com) with an algorithm posted on the DNA Patent Database website that searches for granted U.S. patents (since 1971) and published applications (since 2001) in U.S. patent classes related to genetics and genomics as well as claims that include words specific to nucleic acids, genetics, and genomics. The year 1984 is the first for which more than 100 granted patents are in the DNA Patent Database. Data from Reference 64.

The authors make several points concerning obtaining patents in the genomics field including:

  • Differences in patent practice can be important to scientists working in genetics and genomics. In the United States, a patent goes to the first inventor. If patents or patent applications overlap and the first person to invent is in dispute, then the patent office initiates what’s called an interference proceeding, with intricate rules about deciding priority of invention.
  • Interferences are more than twice as common in biotechnology patents than in any other patent class, six times higher than patents on average (140).
  • The United States also allows a year’s grace period from publication of information pertinent to a patent claim, whereas any public disclosure becomes “prior art” that can defeat patent claims in other jurisdictions.

 

International harmonization of DNA patents exist including:

  1. 1973 European Patent Convention created the European Patent Office (EPO). EPO can issue a patent valid in signatory countries
  2. 1995 Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement committed signatory countries to adopt patent standards mainly modeled on the developed-country model of strong patent protection
  3. 1998 Biotechnology Directive: the Directive became an important element of European patent law that binds national governments to comply with it
  4. Both the United States House and Senate of the 111th Congress are considering bills similar to one passed by the House of Representatives (but not the Senate) in the 110th Congress (2007–2008). Two provisions particularly relevant to genetic and genomic inventions are (a) shifting from the current “first to invent” U.S. standard to “first inventor to file,” as in the rest of the world; and (b) establishing a mechanism to challenge patent claims closer to the European opposition process.

top 30 institutions holding patents in the DNA Patent Database. Among them are

  1. Agribusiness and chemical companies (Monsanto and DuPont)
  2. U.S. Government (largely attributable to the large intramural research program at the National Institutes of Health)
  3. Public and private universities (Universities of California and Texas, Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc.)
  4. Pharmaceutical firms (Novartis, Glaxo SmithKline, Pfizer, Merck, SanofiAventis, Takeda, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Lilly, etc.)
  5. Established biotechnology firms (Genentech, Amgen, Genzyme, ISIS, etc.)
  6. Firms created to exploit genomic technologies (Incyte, Human Genome Sciences, etc.)
  7. Instrumentation and DNA chip firms (LifeTechnologies, Affymetrix, Becton, Dickinson, etc.)
  8. Academic research institutes (Institut Pasteur, Salk, Scripps, and Ludwig Institutes, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, etc.)
  9. Hospitals with research units (e.g., Massachusetts General Hospital)

 

 

 

 

 

topUSDNApatentholders

Top U.S. DNA patent holders. The authors compiled a list of assignees with at least 100 patents, combined different names for the same assignee, and updated names to reflect corporate mergers and acquisitions. Patent counts are from the Delphion Patent Database for U.S. patents granted as of October 26, 2009, using the DNA Patent Database algorithm (64). Data from Reference 64. From Cook-Deegan, R. and C. Heany. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2010 Sep 22; 11: 383–425.

And an opinion article by Harvard Law School arguing against the patent-ability of natural products such as DNA:

DNA Sequences as Unpatentable Subject Matter

by  Victor Song & Prof. Peter Hutt

How Merck’s attempt to patent Vitamin B12 may have started a precedent:

In addition to Kuehmsted, the case most frequently cited to support the patentability of “purified and isolated” substances is Merck & Company v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation [44] . In 1958, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed the metes and bounds of the product of nature exception in Merck . The invention at the center of Merck was entitled, “Vitamin B(12)-Active Composition and Process of Preparing Same”.

Prior to the discovery claimed by the patent, vitamin B(12) was unknown to man. What had been known was that patients who had pernicious anemia could mitigate the effects of their condition by consuming cow liver. For years the scientific community analyzed cow liver to determine what in cow liver was the therapeutically active compound. For lack of a better term, scientists named this unknown therapeutic agent the “anti-pernicious anemia” compound.

After a considerable amount of chemical analysis, scientists at Merck isolated the “anti-pernicious anemia” compound in cow liver. They also discovered an alternate source of the “anti-pernicious anemia” compound. Merck scientists were able to harvest the “anti-pernicious anemia” compound from the fermenting eluent of certain microorganisms. After isolating and characterizing the structure of the newly found “anti-pernicious anemia” compound, the scientist renamed it vitamin B(12) for its chemical similarities to the vitamin B family.

Having discovered vitamin B(12), Merck filed for and obtained U.S. patent 2,703,302 (‘the ‘302 patent”) covering both the process of making vitamin B(12) and the actual chemical compound for vitamin B(12). Only the product claims were at issue in Merck [45] . A representative product claim reads:

A vitamin B(12)-active composition comprising recovered elaboration products of the fermentation of a vitamin B(12)-activity producing strain of Fungi selected from the class consisting of Schizomycetes, Torula, and Eremothecium, the L.L.D. activity of said composition being at least 440 L.L.D. units per milligram and less than 11 million L.L.D. units per milligram.[46]

Prior to the appeal, the district court had determined that the product claims were invalid as products of nature. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. In reversing the District Court, the Fourth Circuit followed a line of reasoning similar to Kuehmsted.The Court of Appeals reasoned that the product of nature was the unpurified fermenting eluent which had no therapeutic value. However, Merck’s purified fermenting eluent had therapeutic value. Thus, the court believed Merck’s purified product, which was essentially vitamin B(12), was a different from unpurified fermenting eluent. Since Merck’s purified product was different from the product of nature, the court reasoned that it could not be a product of nature.

The main weakness in the Merck decision is similar to weakness of the Kuehmsted decision. Can vitamin B(12) be considered “new” if it always existed in cow liver? In addition, is it necessary to grant Merck both product and process claims? Even without the product claims, Merck will still be able to profit handsomely from the process claims alone. In addition, Merck could have applied for a vitamin B(12) use patent. Merck could have patented the therapeutic use of their vitamin B(12) for treating pernicious anemia.

There are two interesting aspects of the courts decision in Merck . First, in coming to its conclusion that the purified fermentate was not a product of nature the court turned to the phrase “new and useful” contained in section 101. This was an appropriate focus of analysis for the court because it is from this phrase that the product of nature exception is derived. However, in interpreting the phrase “new and useful” the court substituted the patent terms “novelty and utility”.[47]

The threshold for meeting the utility requirement for patentability is very low. Nearly all inventions meet the utility requirement. It is the Fourth Circuit’s reliance on the patent requirement of novelty for the term “new” which is more interesting. The court’s reliance of the novelty standard presents an interesting interpretation because the product of nature exception is not premised solely on the novelty requirement.[48] The product of nature doctrine simply states that products of nature are not patentable because they are made by nature, not by man. Furthermore, since products of nature existed in nature prior to man’s discovery of them, they are not new and thus excluded from patentability.

The novelty standard requires a different analysis. Although the issue of novelty also addresses the question as to whether or not an invention is new, the question of novelty is answered by looking at the prior art. Roughly speaking, the prior art exemplifies man’s entire body of scientific knowledge at the time of invention. In order to be novel, an invention must not be recited in one piece of prior art. For example, to demonstrate a lack of novelty, a single scientific journal article must describe how to extract vitamin B(12) from a fungal fermenting eluent.

The problem with using the novelty requirement to interpret “new” with regard to product of nature purposes is that no product of nature would be found in the prior art before it was discovered. In effect, using the novelty standard eviscerates the product of nature exception. The novelty standard also circumvents the purpose of the product of nature doctrine which is to prevent man from claiming “manifestations of [the] laws of nature”.[49]

For illustrative purposes we can use vitamin B(12) as an example. According to the Fourth Circuit, in order for vitamin B(12) to be considered a product of nature it must lack novelty. To lack novelty, vitamin B(12) must be recited in a single prior art source. Before its discovery by Merck, vitamin B(12) was unknown and hence could not be found in any prior art source. However, vitamin B(12) has always existed as a naturally occurring substance in cow liver (i.e. a product of nature). Despite clear evidence that vitamin B(12) is a product of nature, the Fourth Circuit would permit a patent on vitamin B(12).

This approach nullifies the purpose of the product of nature doctrine. By using the novelty standard, the court never asks the question whether or not vitamin B(12) was made by man. The purpose of the product of nature doctrine is to prevent man from patenting what is made by nature and should thus be accessible to everyone. The Fourth Circuit’s novelty analysis does not consider this.

The second interesting point about Merck is the product claim itself. In claim 1 recited above, vitamin B(12) is claimed only as a product of fermentation. Merck did not claim the vitamin B(12)chemical formula. This is a significant distinction because competitors could design around Merck’s product claim if they could manufacture vitamin B(12) without utilizing the fermenting eluent of fungi. For example, a manufacturer who processed cow livers to obtain vitamin B(12) could sell its version of vitamin B(12) product without infringing Merck’s product claims[50] . With cases such as Kuehmsted and Merck on one side of the product of nature debate, there are several cases which fall on the other side of the debate[51] . In addition to Funk Brothers, General Electric Co. v. De Forest Radio Co. [52] is representative of a court decision upholding the product of nature exception. The invention at the center of General Electric was the chemical element tungsten (W). General Electric was assigned U.S. Patent 1,082,933 (the ‘933 patent) for tungsten.

Is DNA Patentable Subject Matter?

As the cases discussed indicate, it is not entirely clear whether or not DNA sequences are patentable subject matter. What is clear is that processes for isolating DNA sequences are permissible as are product claims that use DNA sequences (such as Chakrabarty’s genetically modified micro-organism). In addition, inventors could get patents for the therapeutic uses of their DNA sequence products.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chakrabarty indicates an intention by the court to expand the scope of patentable subject matter, but the product of nature doctrine still remains. Whether or not the product of nature exception will apply to DNA sequences depends upon how the courts view DNA sequences. If the courts analogize isolated and purified DNA sequences to aspirin or vitamin B(12), then DNA sequences would be moved outside the product of nature exception and into the scope of patentable subject matter. On the other hand, if DNA sequences are comparable to tungsten or “manifestation of laws of nature” then the product of nature exception would apply.

As the law is currently interpreted by patent practitioners, the product of nature exception to patentable subject matter is considered a technical problem related to drafting DNA sequence product claims. For the patent attorney, all that is necessary to get around the product of nature exception is to not claim a DNA in its naturally occurring form. In order to resolve this technical problem, a patent attorney will claim DNA sequences in an “isolated and purified” form. For example, Amgen’s DNA sequence claim to EPO in United States Patent 4,703,008 reads, “A purified and isolated DNA sequence consisting essentially of a DNA sequence encoding human erythropoietin.”[57]

DNA sequences have been described as molecular strands of genetic information.[59] Information which is so fundamental that it is akin to the natural laws of science. This fundamental information, in the words of Funk Brothers , is “part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men. They are manifestations of laws of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.”[60] As manifestations of the laws of nature, DNA sequences should be free to all men. By unlocking the hidden secrets of the genetic code, scientists will be able to produce new medical therapies to treat a wide range of illnesses. It is these new therapeutic inventions, their uses, and the processes for making them which should be patented, not the DNA sequences used to implement these inventions.

Although DNA sequences have been analogized to long polymer chains[65] and as a result should be treated similarly to synthesized polymers, this is not entirely correct. The analogy fails because an inventor’s ingenuity plays a part in designing a polymer chain. A chemist will manipulate reaction conditions to produce a polymer with certain characteristics such as strength, durability, and flexibility. This is not the case with DNA. The inventor’s ingenuity, once again, plays no part in designing the DNA sequence as this was the work of nature over thousands of years of evolution.

So the Harvard Law School article concludes:

  1. Patentable subject matter is statutorily defined in 35 U.S.C. Section 101 to include new and useful products (machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter) and processes. However, subject matter which fall outside the scope of Section 101 are products of nature.
  2. There are two general arguments for excluding products of nature from patentable subject matter. First, is that products of nature are the “manifestations of laws of nature”. As the building blocks of science, to grant ownership to these fundamental products would do more harm than good to scientific innovation. Second, is the patent system’s purpose in encouraging inventorship. An inherent aspect of inventorship is interaction of human ingenuity with the natural world. Products of nature are excluded from patentability because they would grant ownership rights to the natural world without any element of human ingenuity. These product of nature patents would reward inventors for nature’s work.

Man has played no part in creating DNA. What required man’s ingenuity was isolating, purifying, and sequencing the DNA. These inventions deserve patent protection.

Other articles on this Open Access Journal on Patents, Patent Fights and Intellectual Property include:

Top Twenty Universities on a list of the top 100 worldwide universities that received the most U.S. utility patents in 2014

The Patents for CRISPR, the DNA editing technology as the Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century

Innovators can exit with an idea: How to Monetizing Patents and ideas: yazamIP.com launches Idea Lab

RNA related IP Patents Awards

Linus Pauling: On Lipoprotein(a) Patents and On Vitamin C

Recent Patents on Biomarkers

Litigation on the Way: Broad Institute Gets Patent on Revolutionary Gene-Editing Method

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting


 

Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting

Achievement Beyond Regulatory Approval – Design for Commercial Success

philly2nightStephen J. Williams, Ph.D.: Reporter

The Mid-Atlantic group Life Sciences Collaborative, a select group of industry veterans and executives from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device sectors whose mission is to increase the success of emerging life sciences businesses in the Mid-Atlantic region through networking, education, training and mentorship, met Tuesday March 3, 2015 at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia (USP) to discuss post-approval regulatory issues and concerns such as designing strong patent protection, developing strategies for insurance reimbursement, and securing financing for any stage of a business.

The meeting was divided into three panel discussions and keynote speech:

  1. Panel 1: Design for Market Protection– Intellectual Property Strategy Planning
  2. Panel 2: Design for Market Success– Commercial Strategy Planning
  3. Panel 3: Design for Investment– Financing Each Stage
  4. Keynote Speaker: Robert Radie, President & CEO Egalet Corporation

Below are Notes from each PANEL Discussion:

For more information about the Life Sciences Collaborative SEE

Website: http://www.lifesciencescollaborative.org/

Or On Facebook

Or On Twitter @LSCollaborative

Panel 1: Design for Market Protection; Intellectual Property Strategy Planning

Take-home Message: Developing a very strong Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio and strategy for a startup is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT for its long-term success. Potential investors, partners, and acquirers will focus on the strength of a startup’s IP so important to take advantage of the legal services available. Do your DUE DIGILENCE.

Panelists:

John F. Ritter, J.D.., MBA; Director Office Tech. Licensing Princeton University

Cozette McAvoy; Senior Attorney Novartis Oncology Pharma Patents

Ryan O’Donnell; Partner Volpe & Koenig

Panel Moderator: Dipanjan “DJ” Nag, PhD, MBA, CLP, RTTP; President CEO IP Shaktl, LLC

Notes:

Dr. Nag:

  • Sometimes IP can be a double edged sword; e.g. Herbert Boyer with Paul Berg and Stanley Cohen credited with developing recombinant technology but they did not keep the IP strict and opened the door for a biotech revolution (see nice review from Chemical Heritage Foundation).
  • Naked patent licenses are most profitable when try to sell IP

John Ritter: Mr. Ritter gave Princeton University’s perspective on developing and promoting a university-based IP portfolio.

  • 30-40% of Princeton’s IP portfolio is related to life sciences
  • Universities will prefer to seek provisional patent status as a quicker process and allows for publication
  • Princeton will work closely with investigators to walk them through process – Very Important to have support system in place INCLUDING helping investigators and early startups establish a STRONG startup MANAGEMENT TEAM, and making important introductions to and DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIOPS with investors, angels
  • Good to cast a wide net when looking at early development partners like pharma
  • Good example of university which takes active role in developing startups is University of Pennsylvania’s Penn UPstart program.
  • Last 2 years many universities filing patents for startups as a micro-entity

Comment from attendee: Universities are not using enough of their endowments for purpose of startups. Princeton only using $500,00 for accelerator program.

Cozette McAvoy: Mrs. McAvoy talked about monetizing your IP from an industry perspective

  • Industry now is looking at “indirect monetization” of their and others IP portfolio. Indirect monetization refers to unlocking the “indirect value” of intellectual property; for example research tools, processes, which may or may not be related to a tangible product.
  • Good to make a contractual bundle of IP – “days of the $million check is gone”
  • Big companies like big pharma looks to PR (press relation) buzz surrounding new technology, products SO IMPORTANT FOR STARTUP TO FOCUS ON YOUR PR

Ryan O’Donnell: talked about how life science IP has changed especially due to America Invests Act

  • Need to develop a GLOBAL IP strategy so whether drug or device can market in multiple countries
  • Diagnostics and genes not patentable now – Major shift in patent strategy
  • Companies like Unified Patents can protect you against the patent trolls – if patent threatened by patent troll (patent assertion entity) will file a petition with the USPTO (US Patent Office) requesting institution of inter partes review (IPR); this may cost $40,000 BUT WELL WORTH the money – BE PROACTIVE about your patents and IP

Panel 2: Design for Market Success; Commercial Strategy Planning

Take-home Message: Commercial strategy development is defined market facing data, reimbursement strategies and commercial planning that inform labeling requirements, clinical study designs, healthcare economic outcomes and pricing targets. Clarity from payers is extremely important to develop any market strategy. Develop this strategy early and seek advice from payers.

Panelists:

David Blaszczak; Founder, Precipio Health Strategies

Terri Bernacchi, PharmD, MBA; Founder & President Cambria Health Advisory Professionals

Paul Firuta; President US Commercial Operations, NPS Pharma

 

Panel Moderator: Matt Cabrey; Executive Director, Select Greater Philadelphia

 

Notes:

David Blaszczak:

  • Commercial payers are bundling payment: most important to get clarity from these payers
  • Payers are using clinical trials to alter marketing (labeling) so IMPORTANT to BUILD LABEL in early clinical trial phases (phase I or II)
  • When in early phases of small company best now to team or partner with a Medicare or PBM (pharmacy benefit manager) and payers to help develop and spot tier1 and tier 2 companies in their area

Terri Bernacchi:

  • Building relationship with the payer is very important but firms like hers will also look to patients and advocacy groups to see how they respond to a given therapy and decrease the price risk by bundling
  • Value-based contracting with manufacturers can save patient and payer $$
  • As most PBMs formularies are 80% generics goal is how to make money off of generics
  • Patent extension would have greatest impact on price, value

Paul Firuta:

  • NPS Pharma developing a pharmacy benefit program for orphan diseases
  • How you pay depends on mix of Medicare, private payers now
  • Most important change which could affect price is change in compliance regulations

Panel 3: Design for Investment; Financing Each Stage

Take-home Message: VC is a personal relationship so spend time making those relationships. Do your preparation on your value and your market. Look to non-VC avenues: they are out there.

Panelists:

Ting Pau Oei; Managing Director, Easton Capital (NYC)

Manya Deehr; CEO & Founder, Pediva Therapeutics

Sanjoy Dutta, PhD; Assistant VP, Translational Devel. & Intl. Res., Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation

 

Panel Moderator: Shahram Hejazi, PhD; Venture Partner, BioAdvance

  • In 2000 his experience finding 1st capital was what are your assets; now has changed to value

Notes:

Ting Pau Oei:

  • Your very 1st capital is all about VALUE– so plan where you add value
  • Venture Capital is a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
  • 1) you need the management team, 2) be able to communicate effectively                  (Powerpoint, elevator pitch, business plan) and #1 and #2 will get you important 2nd Venture Capital meeting; VC’s don’t decide anything in 1st meeting
  • VC’s don’t normally do a good job of premarket valuation or premarket due diligence but know post market valuation well
  • Best advice: show some phase 2 milestones and VC will knock on your door

Manya Deehr:

  • Investment is more niche oriented so find your niche investors
  • Define your product first and then match the investors
  • Biggest failure she has experienced: companies that go out too early looking for capital

Dr. Dutta: funding from a non-profit patient advocacy group perspective

  • Your First Capital: find alliances which can help you get out of “valley of death
  • Develop a targeted product and patient treatment profile
  • Non-profit groups ask three questions:

1) what is the value to patients (non-profits want to partner)

2) what is your timeline (we can wait longer than VC; for example Cystic Fibrosis Foundation waited long time but got great returns for their patients with Kalydeco™)

3) when can we see return

  • Long-term market projections are the knowledge gaps that startups have (the landscape) and startups don’t have all the competitive intelligence
  • Have a plan B every step of the way

Other posts on this site related to Philadelphia Biotech, Startup Funding, Payer Issues, and Intellectual Property Issues include:

PCCI’s 7th Annual Roundtable “Crowdfunding for Life Sciences: A Bridge Over Troubled Waters?” May 12 2014 Embassy Suites Hotel, Chesterbrook PA 6:00-9:30 PM
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on KannaLife Sciences and the Discipline and Potential of Pharmacognosy
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on Computer-Aided Drug Design and Gfree Bio, LLC
The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on Vaccines and Philimmune, LLC
The Bioscience Crowdfunding Environment: The Bigger Better VC?
Foundations as a Funding Source
Venture Capital Funding in the Life Sciences: Phase4 Ventures – A Case Study
10 heart-focused apps & devices are crowdfunding for American Heart Association’s open innovation challenge
Funding, Deals & Partnerships
Medicare Panel Punts on Best Tx for Carotid Plaque
9:15AM–2:00PM, January 27, 2015 – Regulatory & Reimbursement Frameworks for Molecular Testing, LIVE @Silicon Valley 2015 Personalized Medicine World Conference, Mountain View, CA
FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg on HealthCare for 310Million Americans and the Role of Personalized Medicine
Biosimilars: Intellectual Property Creation and Protection by Pioneer and by Biosimilar Manufacturers
Litigation on the Way: Broad Institute Gets Patent on Revolutionary Gene-Editing Method
The Patents for CRISPR, the DNA editing technology as the Biggest Biotech Discovery of the Century

 

 

Read Full Post »


The following is a summary of the panel discussions for the  1st Pitch Life Science- Philadelphia: “Eavesdropping on Investors’ Closed Door Discussions” held on September 16, 2014 in Philadelphia.  For synopsis of the meeting see

1st Pitch Life Science- Philadelphia- What VCs Really Think of your Pitch

The meeting, as described by meeting organizer and Steering Committee member of Mid Atlantic Bio Angels Lorraine Marchand, as a “benevolent sharktank”, where presenters get open and honest feedback from experienced venture capitalists on how to improve their pitch and business.  The meeting here in Philadelphia was well attended with” over 70 attendants compareable to the 130 we get in New york”, according to MABA Founder Yaniv Sneor.

 

A few key points were discussed to improve the presenters future pitches to VC.

  1. Define your technology/product, its purpose, how it fills an unmet need, and how you are unique.
  2. Timelines and Milestones VERY IMPORTANT to have specific dates on when and what you will accomplish.
  3. If your EXIT Strategy involves OUT-LICENSING, it is important to keep this in mind when framing your patent
  4. VC’s want to see a STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM, preferably a CEO from big pharma if you need to deal with them later
  5. if PITCH sounds too much like a science project VC’s would NOT be interested.  Show also the BUSINESS not just science
  6. know the REGULATORY RISK – talk with the FDA
  7. if market is small, son’t fret, show PROOF OF CONCEPT then show how relates to other markets
  8. show your TANGIBLE ASSETS in your pitch – if you use a new equipment show it,

Other posts related to this meeting are included below

1st Pitch Life Science- Philadelphia- What VCs Really Think of your Pitch

Hastke Inc. Presents at 1st Pitch Life Sciences-Philadelphia

LytPhage Presents at 1st Pitch Life Sciences-Philadelphia

RAbD Biotech Presents at 1st Pitch Life Sciences-Philadelphia

Also FOLLOW on TWITTER at

@pharma_BI      https://twitter.com/Pharma_BI

@BioAngelsGroup     https://twitter.com/BioAngelsGroup

 

 

Read Full Post »

Why did this occur? The matter of Individual Actions Undermining Trust, The Patent Dilemma and The Value of a Clinical Trials


Why did this occur? The matter of Individual Actions Undermining Trust, The Patent Dilemma and The Value of a Clinical Trials

Reporter and Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

he large amount of funding tied to continued research and support of postdoctoral fellows leads one to ask how following the money can lead to discredited work in th elite scientific community.

Moreover, the pressure to publish in prestigious journals with high impact factors is a road to academic promotion.  In the last twenty years, it is unusual to find submissions for review with less than 6-8 authors, with the statement that all contributed to the work.  These factors can’t be discounted outright, but it is easy for work to fall through the cracks when a key investigator has over 200 publications and holds tenure in a great research environment.  But that is where we find ourselves today.

There is another issue that comes up, which is also related to the issue of carrying out research, and then protecting the work for commercialization.  It is more complicated in the sense that it is necessary to determine whether there is prior art, and then there is the possibility that after the cost of filing patent and a 6 year delay in obtaining protection, there is as great a cost in bringing the patent to finasl production.

I.  Individual actions undermining trust.

II. The patent dilemma.

III. The value of a clinical trial.

IV. The value contributions of RAP physicians
(radiologists, anesthesiologists, and pathologists – the last for discussion)
Those who maintain and inform the integrity of medical and surgical decisions

 

I. Top heart lab comes under fire

Kelly Servick

Science 18 July 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6194 p. 254 DOI: 10.1126/science.345.6194.25

 

In the study of cardiac regeneration, Piero Anversa is among the heavy hitters. His research into the heart’s repair mechanisms helped kick-start the field of cardiac cell therapy (see main story). After more than 4 decades of research and 350 papers, he heads a lab at Harvard Medical School’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in Boston that has more than $6 million in active grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He is also an outspoken voice in a field full of disagreement.

So when an ongoing BWH investigation of the lab came to light earlier this year, Anversa’s colleagues were transfixed. “Reactions in the field run the gamut from disbelief to vindication,” says Mark Sussman, a cardiovascular researcher at San Diego State University in California who has collaborated with Anversa. By Sussman’s account, Anversa’s reputation for “pushing the envelope” and “challenging existing dogma” has generated some criticism. Others, however, say that the disputes run deeper—to doubts about a cell therapy his lab has developed and about the group’s scientific integrity. Anversa told Science he was unable to comment during the investigation.

“People are talking about this all the time—at every scientific meeting I go to,” says Charles Murry, a cardiovascular pathologist at the University of Washington, Seattle. “It’s of grave concern to people in the field, but it’s been frustrating,” because no information is available about BWH’s investigation. BWH would not comment for this article, other than to say that it addresses concerns about its researchers confidentially.

In April, however, the journal Circulation agreed to Harvard’s request to retract a 2012 paper on which Anversa is a corresponding author, citing “compromised” data. The Lancet also issued an “Expression of Concern” about a 2011 paper reporting results from a clinical trial, known as SCIPIO, on which Anversa collaborated. According to a notice from the journal, two supplemental figures are at issue.

For some, Anversa’s status has earned him the benefit of the doubt. “Obviously, this is very disconcerting,” says Timothy Kamp, a cardiologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, but “I would be surprised if it was an implication of a whole career of research.”

Throughout that career, Anversa has argued that the heart is a prolific, lifelong factory for new muscle cells. Most now accept the view that the adult heart can regenerate muscle, but many have sparred with Anversa over his high estimates for the rate of this turnover, which he maintained in the retracted Circulation paper.

Anversa’s group also pioneered a method of separating cells with potential regenerative abilities from other cardiac tissue based on the presence of a protein called c-kit. After publishing evidence that these cardiac c-kit+cells spur new muscle growth in rodent hearts, the group collaborated in the SCIPIO trial to inject them into patients with heart failure. In The Lancet, the scientists reported that the therapy was safe and showed modest ability to strengthen the heart—evidence that many found intriguing and provocative. Roberto Bolli, the cardiologist whose group at the University of Louisville in Kentucky ran the SCIPIO trial, plans to test c-kit+ cells in further clinical trials as part of the NIH-funded Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network.

But others have been unable to reproduce the dramatic effects Anversa saw in animals, and some have questioned whether these cells really have stem cell–like properties. In May, a group led by Jeffery Molkentin, a molecular biologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio, published a paper in Nature tracing the genetic lineage of c-kit+ cells that reside in the heart. He concluded that although they did make new muscle cells, the number is “astonishingly low” and likely not enough to contribute to the repair of damaged hearts. Still, Molkentin says that he “believe[s] in their therapeutic potential” and that he and Anversa have discussed collaborating.

Now, an anonymous blogger claims that problems in the Anversa lab go beyond controversial findings. In a letter published on the blog Retraction Watch on 30 May, a former research fellow in the Anversa lab described a lab culture focused on protecting the c-kit+ cell hypothesis: “[A]ll data that did not point to the ‘truth’ of the hypothesis were considered wrong,” the person wrote. But another former lab member offers a different perspective. “I had a great experience,” says Federica Limana, a cardiovascular disease researcher at IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana in Rome who spent 2 years of her Ph.D. work with the group in 1999 and 2000, as it was beginning to investigate c-kit+ cells. “In that period, there was no such pressure” to produce any particular result, she says.

Accusations about the lab’s integrity, combined with continued silence from BWH, are deeply troubling for scientists who have staked their research on theories that Anversa helped pioneer. Some have criticized BWH for requesting retractions in the midst of an investigation. “Scientific reputations and careers hang in the balance,” Sussman says, “so everyone should wait until all facts are clearly and fully disclosed.”

 

II.  Trolling Along: Recent Commotion About Patent Trolls

July 17, 2014

PriceWaterhouseCoopers recently released a study about 2014 Patent Litigation. PwC’s ultimate conclusion was that case volume increased vastly and damages continue a general decline, but what’s making headlines everywhere is that “patent trolls” now account for 67% of all new patent lawsuits (see, e.g., Washington Post and Fast Company).

Surprisingly, looking at PwC’s study, the word “troll” is not to be found. So, with regard to patent trolls, what does this study really mean for companies, patent owners and casual onlookers?

First of all, who are these trolls?

“Patent Troll” is a label applied to patent owners who do not make or manufacture a product, or offer a service. Patent trolls live (and die) by suing others for allegedly practicing an invention that is claimed by their patents.

The politically correct term is Non-practicing Entity (NPE). PwC solely uses the term NPE, which it defines as an entity that does not have the capability to design, manufacture, or distribute products with features protected by the patent.

So, what’s so bad about them?

The common impression of an NPEs is a business venture looking to collect and monetize assets (i.e., patents). In the most basic strategy, an NPE typically buys patents with broad claims that cover a wide variety of technologies and markets, and then sues a large group of alleged patent infringers in the hope to collect a licensing royalty or a settlement. NPEs typically don’t want to spend money on a trial unless they have to, and one tactic uses settlements with smaller businesses to build a “war chest” for potential suits with larger companies.

NPEs initiating a lawsuit can be viewed positively, such as a just defense of the lowly inventor who sold his patent to someone (with deeper pockets) who could fund the litigation to protect the inventor’s hard work against a mega-conglomerate who ripped off his idea.

Or NPE litigation can be seen negatively, such as an attorney’s demand letter on behalf of an anonymous shell corporation to shake down dozens of five-figure settlements from all the local small businesses that have ever used a fax machine.

NPEs can waste a company’s valuable time and resources with lawsuits, yet also bring value to their patent portfolios by energizing a patent sales and licensing market. There are unscrupulous NPEs, but it’s hardly the black and white situation that some media outlets are depicting.

What did PwC say about trolls?

Well, the PwC study looked at the success rates and awards of patent litigation decisions. One conclusion is that damages awards for NPEs averaged more than triple those for practicing entities over the last four years. We’ll come back to this statistic.

Another key observation is that NPEs have been successful 25% of the time overall, versus 35% for practicing entities. This makes sense because of the burden of proof the NPEs carry as a plaintiff at trial and the relative lack of success for NPEs at summary judgment. However, PwC’s report states that both types of entities win about two-thirds of their trials.

But what about this “67% of all patent trials are initiated by trolls” discussion?

The 67% number comes from the RPX Corporation’s litigation report (produced January 2014) that quantified the percentage of NPE cases filed in 2013 as 67%, compared to 64% in 2012, 47% in 2011, 30% in 2010 and 28% in 2009.

PwC refers to the RPX statistics to accentuate that this new study indicates that only 20% ofdecisions in 2013 involved NPE-filed cases, so the general conclusion would be that NPE cases tend to settle or be dismissed prior to a court’s decision. Admittedly, this is indicative of the prevalent “spray and pray” strategy where NPEs prefer to collect many settlement checks from several “targets” and avoid the courtroom.

In this study, who else is an NPE?

If someone were looking to dramatize the role of “trolls,” the name can be thrown around liberally (and hurtfully) to anyone who owns and asserts a patent without offering a product or a service. For instance, colleges and universities fall under the NPE umbrella as their research and development often ends with a series of published papers rather than a marketable product on an assembly line.

In fact, PwC distinguishes universities and non-profits from companies and individuals within their NPE analysis, with only about 5% of the NPE cases from 1995 to 2013 being attributed to universities and non-profits. Almost 50% of the NPE cases are attributed to an “individual,” who could be the listed inventor for the patent or a third-party assignee.

The word “troll” is obviously a derogatory term used to connote greed and hiding (under a bridge), but the term has adopted a newer, meme-like status as trolls are currently depicted as lacking any contribution to society and merely living off of others’ misfortunes and fears. [Three Billy Goats Gruff]. This is not always the truth with NPEs (e.g., universities).

No one wants to be called a troll—especially in front of a jury—so we’ve even recently seen courts bar defendants from referring to NPEs as such colorful terms as a “corporate shell,” “bounty hunter,” “privateer,” or someone “playing the lawsuit lottery.” [Judge Koh Bans Use Of Term ” Patent Troll” In Apple Jury Trial]

Regardless of the portrayal of an NPE, most people in the patent world distinguish the “trolls” by the strength of the patent, merits of the alleged infringement and their behavior upon notification. Often these are expressed as “frivolity” of the case and “gamesmanship” of the attorneys. Courts are able to punish plaintiffs who bring frivolous claims against a party and state bar associations are tasked with monitoring the ethics of attorneys. The USPTO is tasked with working to strengthen the quality of patents.

What’s the take-away from this study regarding NPEs?

The study focuses on patent litigation that produced a decision, therefore the most important and relevant conclusion is that, over the last four years, average damages awards for NPEs are more than triple the damages for practicing entities. Everything else in these articles, such as the initiation of litigation by NPEs, settlement percentages, and the general behavior of patent trolls is pure inference beyond the scope of the study.

This may sound sympathetic to trolls, but keep in mind that the study highlights that NPEs have more than triple the damages on average compared to practicing entities and it is meant to shock the reader a bit. One explanation for this is that NPEs are in the best position to choose the patents they want to assert and choose the targets they wish to sue—especially when the NPE is willing to ride that patent all the way to the end of a long, expensive trial. Sometimes settling is not an option. Chart 2b indicates that the disparity in the damages awarded to NPEs relative to practicing entities has always been big (since 2000), but perhaps going from two-fold from 2000 – 2009 to three times as much in the past 4 years indicates that NPEs are improving at finding patents and/or picking battles to take all the way to a court decision. More than anything, this seems to reflect the growth in the concept of patents as a business asset.

The PwC report is chock full of interesting patterns and trends of litigation results, so it’s a shame that the 67% number makes the headlines—far more interesting are the charts comparing success rates by 4-year periods (Chart 6b) or success rates for NPEs and practicing entities in front of a jury verusin front of a bench (Chart 6c), as well as other tables that reveal statistics for specific districts of the federal courts. Even the stats that look at the success rates of each type of NPE are telling because the reader sees that universities and non-profits have a higher success rate than non-practicing companies or individuals.

What do we do about the trolls?

The White House has recently called for Congress to do something about the trolls as horror stories of scams and shake-downs are shared. A bill was gaining momentum in the Senate, when Senator Leahy took it off the agenda in early July. That bill had miraculously passed 325-91 in the House and President Obama was willing to sign it if the Senate were to pass it. The bill was opposed by trial attorneys, universities, and bio-pharmaceutical businesses who felt as though the law would severely inhibit everyone’s access to the courts in order to hinder just the trolls. Regardless, most people think that the sitting Congressmen merely wanted a “win” prior to the mid-term elections and that patent reform is unlikely to reappear until next term.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court has recently reiterated rules concerning attorney fee-shifting on frivolous patent cases, as well as clarifying the validity of software patents. Time will tell if these changes have any effects on the damages awards that PwC’s study examined or even if they cause a chilling of the number of patent lawsuit filings.

Furthermore, new ways to challenge the validity of asserted patents have been initiated via the America Invents Act. For example, the Inter Partes Review (IPR) has yielded frightening preliminary statistics as to slowing, if not killing, patents that have been asserted in a suit. While these administrative trials are not cheap, many view these new tools at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board as anti-troll measures. It will be interesting to watch how the USPTO implements these procedures in the near future, especially while former Google counsel, Acting Director Michelle K. Lee, oversees the office.

In the private sector, Silicon Valley has recently seen a handful of tech companies come together as the License on Transfer Network, a group hoping to disarm the “Patent Assertion Entities.” Joining the LOT Network comes via an agreement that creates a license for use of a patent by anyone in the LOT network once that patent is sold. The thought is that the NPEs who consider purchasing patents from companies in the LOT Network will have fewer companies to sue since the license to the other active LOT participants will have triggered upon the transfer and, thus, the NPE will not be as inclined to “troll.” For instance, if a member-company such as Google were to sell a patent to a non-member company and an NPE bought that patent, the NPE would not be able to sue any members of the LOT Network with that patent.

Other notes

NPEs are only as evil as the people who run them—that being said, there are plenty of horror stories of small businesses receiving phantom demand letters that threaten a patent infringement suit without identifying themselves or the patent. This is an out-and-out scam and a plague on society that results in wasted time and resource, and inevitably higher prices on the consumer end.

It is a sin and a shame that patent rights can be misused in scams and shake-downs of businesses around us, but there is a reason that U.S. courts are so often used to defend patent rights. The PwC study, at minimum, reflects the high stakes of the patent market and perhaps the fragility. Nevertheless, merely monitoring the courts may not keep the trolls at bay.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

*This is provided for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal or financial advice. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney or patent agent.

 

III. Large-scale analysis finds majority of clinical trials don’t provide meaningful evidence

Ineffective TreatmentsMedical Ethics • Tags: Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchClinical trialCTTIDuke University HospitalFDAFood and Drug AdministrationNational Institutes of HealthUnited States National Library of Medicine

04 May 2012

DURHAM, N.C.— The largest comprehensive analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov finds that clinical trials are falling short of producing high-quality evidence needed to guide medical decision-making. The analysis, published today in JAMA, found the majority of clinical trials is small, and there are significant differences among methodical approaches, including randomizing, blinding and the use of data monitoring committees.

“Our analysis raises questions about the best methods for generating evidence, as well as the capacity of the clinical trials enterprise to supply sufficient amounts of high quality evidence to ensure confidence in guideline recommendations,” said Robert Califf, M.D., first author of the paper, vice chancellor for clinical research at Duke University Medical Center, and director of the Duke Translational Medicine Institute.

The analysis was conducted by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI), a public private partnership founded by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Duke. It extends the usability of the data in ClinicalTrials.gov for research by placing the data through September 27, 2010 into a database structured to facilitate aggregate analysis. This publically accessible database facilitates the assessment of the clinical trials enterprise in a more comprehensive manner than ever before and enables the identification of trends by study type.

 

The National Library of Medicine (NLM), a part of the National Institutes of Health, developed and manages ClinicalTrials.gov. This site maintains a registry of past, current, and planned clinical research studies.

“Since 2007, the Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act has required registration of clinical trials, and the expanded scope and rigor of trial registration policies internationally is producing more complete data from around the world,” stated Deborah Zarin, MD, director, ClinicalTrials.gov, and assistant director for clinical research projects, NLM. “We have amassed over 120,000 registered clinical trials. This rich repository of data has a lot to say about the national and international research portfolio.”

This CTTI project was a collaborative effort by informaticians, statisticians and project managers from NLM, FDA and Duke. CTTI comprises more than 60 member organizations with the goal of identifying practices that will improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials.

“Since the ClinicalTrials.gov registry contains studies sponsored by multiple entities, including government, industry, foundations and universities, CTTI leaders recognized that it might be a valuable source for benchmarking the state of the clinical trials enterprise,” stated Judith Kramer, MD, executive director of CTTI.

The project goal was to produce an easily accessible database incorporating advances in informatics to permit a detailed characterization of the body of clinical research and facilitate analysis of groups of studies by therapeutic areas, by type of sponsor, by number of participants and by many other parameters.

“Analysis of the entire portfolio will enable the many entities in the clinical trials enterprise to examine their practices in comparison with others,” says Califf. “For example, 96% of clinical trials have ≤1000 participants, and 62% have ≤ 100. While there are many excellent small clinical trials, these studies will not be able to inform patients, doctors and consumers about the choices they must make to prevent and treat disease.”

The analysis showed heterogeneity in median trial size, with cardiovascular trials tending to be twice as large as those in oncology and trials in mental health falling in the middle. It also showed major differences in the use of randomization, blinding, and data monitoring committees, critical issues often used to judge the quality of evidence for medical decisions in clinical practice guidelines and systematic overviews.

“These results reinforce the importance of exploration, analysis and inspection of our clinical trials enterprise,” said Rachel Behrman Sherman, MD, associate director for the Office of Medical Policy at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Generation of this evidence will contribute to our understanding of the number of studies in different phases of research, the therapeutic areas, and ways we can improve data collection about clinical trials, eventually improving the quality of clinical trials.”

Related articles

 

IV.  Lawmakers urge CMS to extend MU hardship exemption for pathologists

 

Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to give pathologists a break and extend the hardship exemption they currently enjoy for all of Stage 3 of the Meaningful Use program.In the letter–dated July 10 and addressed to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner–the lawmakers point out that CMS had recognized in its 2012 final rule implementing Stage 2 of the program that it was difficult for pathologists to meet the Meaningful Use requirements and granted a one year exception for 2015, the first year that penalties will be imposed. They now are asking that the exception be expanded to include the full five-year maximum allowed under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“Pathologists have limited direct contact with patients and do not operate in EHRs,” the letter states. “Instead, pathologists use sophisticated computerized laboratory information systems (LISs) to support the work of analyzing patient specimens and generating test results. These LISs exchange laboratory and pathology data with EHRs.”

Interestingly, the lawmakers’ exemption request is only on behalf of pathologists, even though CMS had granted the one-year hardship exception to pathologists, radiologists and anesthesiologists.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), one of the members spearheading the letter, had also introduced a bill (H.R. 1309) in March 2013 that would exclude pathologists from the incentives and penalties of the Meaningful Use program. The bill, which has 31 cosponsors, is currently sitting in committee. That bill also does not include relief for radiologists or anesthesiologists.

CMS has provided some flexibility about the hardship exceptions in the past, most recently by allowing providers to apply for one due to EHR vendor delays in upgrading to Stage 2 of the program.

However, CMS also noted in the 2012 rule granting the one-year exception that it was granting the exception in large part because of the then-current lack of health information exchange and that “physicians in these three specialties should not expect that this exception will continue indefinitely, nor should they expect that we will grant the exception for the full 5-year period permitted by statute.”

To learn more:
– read the letter (.pdf)

Read Full Post »