This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.

The traditional business model for a new drug relies on a substantial period of market exclusivity to recoup extensive research and development costs. It is important to understand the likelihood of obtaining the required degree of exclusivity, whether through strong patent protection, data exclusivity or orphan designation. Richard Korn and Stephanie Pilkington look at how patent exclusivity can be enhanced as development progresses.

Since patent applications are oſten filed at an early stage in the development of a drug, long before clinical trials are contemplated, there is a danger that the clinical and regulatory teams dealing with the trials may take the patent situation for granted. Conversely, patent attorneys are typically handed responsibility for obtaining valid patents, assessing third-party rights and clearing the way to market, but have no professional role in the clinical trials. Tis separation of patent and clinical/regulatory teams can easily lead to potentially patentable and highly valuable new inventions being overlooked.

It may be possible to strengthen the patent position for a drug by paying careful attention to clinical trials. A significant quantity of data arises from clinical trials, some of which may give rise to patentable new inventions for aspects including new dosage regimes, formulations, combinations, medical indications, and biomarkers of success or failure. Since the trials may be conducted many years aſter the initial patent filing, this may prolong the period of exclusivity significantly past the normal or extended patent term. It also provides an opportunity to obtain a broader territorial scope of patent protection and may even allow a patent position to be secured for a project that previously relied solely on protection arising from data exclusivity or orphan drug marketing exclusivity.

Detailed and timely communication between patent attorneys and the clinical/regulatory experts conducting clinical trials is important if such opportunities are to be identified and exploited.

New dosage regimes

Te patentability of a novel and inventive dosage regime for a drug that was previously known for treating that medical indication has been confirmed at the European Patent Office, and

in European countries such as Germany and the UK, although not in France. Phase I and II trials routinely include dose escalation studies to identify appropriate doses of a drug for therapeutic use. Tese studies have the potential to result in patentable inventions, for example, if they show that the drug is therapeutically effective at a dose that was not expected to be active and would not otherwise have been used.

New formulations

It is standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry to identify improved formulations of successful drugs and to attempt to patent the new formulations to extend the duration of patent protection. Supporters of this practice

consider it to be legitimate life-

cycle management; its detractors, however, condemn this ‘evergreening’ as an abuse of the system that delays the introduction of generic medications and negatively affects public health. What is sometimes overlooked is that the new formulation must meet the same requirements as any other invention in order for a patent to be granted. In order to be non-obvious, it will usually be necessary to show that the new formulation has a surprising or unexpected property. Te standards required to demonstrate patentability of new formulations are typically quite high, but vary from country to country. India, for example, has introduced a requirement into its patent law that a new form of a known substance will not be patentable unless it results in enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance. So, new formulations may not be patentable in India without data from a clinical trial.

New indications

In phase III trials, the efficacy of a drug is tested on relatively large patient groups, oſten

in comparison to current treatments. Patients enrolled in these trials undergo a thorough medical examination prior to, during and at the conclusion of the trial in order to assess efficacy in relation to predetermined medical endpoints and to identify adverse events. Since a large amount of medical information is collected relating to the biological effects of the drug, it is at this stage that potential new indications might be uncovered. It is, of course, rare for a patentable new indication to be identified as a result of a clinical trial, primarily because other effects of the drug may not be revealed in the population being tested, and also because any newly identified indication may not itself be patentable. Nevertheless, it does occur.

Viagra® is a classic example of unexpected innovation. It is well known that the use of sildenafil citrate (Viagra®) for treating erectile dysfunction was identified as an unexpected side-effect in men being administered this drug during a trial for angina. A further example of a new medical indication that was identified during a clinical trial is the use of a GLP-1 analogue to treat obesity. While assessing whether the drug was useful for normalising blood sugar levels in diabetics, it was discovered that the treatment also led to weight loss in patients in the trial. Tis new indication was then patented, providing a potentially valuable further line of protection.

New biomarkers and stratified medicine

Te most promising route for identifying patentable inventions during clinical trials arises from studies to assess how sequence variation in the human genome, and variation in gene expression levels and other phenotypic variations, affect the clinical response to drugs. Such information is increasingly collected and

Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review 2011 39

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84