LSIPR Newsletter 04:14
Life Sciences IP Review is published by: Newton Media Limited, Kingfisher House, 21-23 Elmfield Road, Bromley, BR11LT, United Kingdom +44 203 301 8200
Director Nicholas Lipinski
Publisher John Haley Telephone: +44 203 301 8205 Email:
jhaley@worldipreview.com
Managing editor Martin Essex Telephone: +44 203 301 8211 Email:
messex@newtonmedia.co.uk
Deputy editor Leonie Mercedes
Sub-editor Ros Bromwich
Journalists Ed Conlon, Max Walters
Editorial assistant David Brooke
Production and design Fisherman Creative
©Newton Media Limited 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electrical, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher. Te views expressed in LSIPR are not necessarily those shared by the publisher, Newton Media Limited. Wishing to reflect the true nature of the market, we have included articles from a number of sources, and the views expressed are those of the individual contributors. No responsibility or liability is accepted by Newton Media Limited for any loss to any person, legal or physical, as a result of any statement, fact or figure contained in LSIPR. Tis publication is not a substitute for advice on a specific transaction. Te publication of advertisements does not represent endorsement by the publisher.
Life Sciences IP Review (LSIPR): ISSN 2049-2359 (Print) EDITORIAL PANEL
MaryAnne Armstrong, partner, Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP Victoria Beniac-Brooks, partner, Marks & Clerk LLP Wolfgang Bublak, partner, Bardehle Pagenberg
Trevor Cook, partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Gabriel Di Blasi, partner, Di Blasi & Associates Paul England, Taylor Wessing LLP Janis Fraser, principal, Fish & Richardson PC Penny Gilbert, partner, Powell Gilbert
Andrew Jenner, director of IP innovation and trade, IFPMA Ashwin Julka, managing partner, Remfry & Sagar
Lars Kellberg, corporate vice president, corporate patents, Novo Nordisk A/S Judith Kim, partner, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox Simon Kremer, partner, Mewburn Ellis LLP Nathalie Moll, secretary general, EuropaBio
Matthew Nielsen, partner, Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP Caroline Pallard, partner, Nederlandsch Octrooibureau Michael Pitzner-Bruun, partner, Kromann Reumert
Nabeela Rasheed, shareholder, McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd. Jason Rutt, head of patents, Rouse
José Trigueros, partner, Leyva Montenegro Trigueros Abogados SC Joachim Wachenfeld, partner, Vossius & Partner Jane Wainwright, partner, Potter Clarkson LLP
Gordon Wright, partner, Elkington & Fife LLP, on behalf of CIPA Franz-Josef Zimmer, patent attorney, Grünecker
EDITOR’S LETTER/CONTENTS 3 The personal touch
Scouring the internet for information on personalised medicine, I came across this quote: “Would your teenaged son buy the same clothes as his grandmother? Probably not. But when they get sick, they’re likely to receive just about the same treatment and drug choices.”
It sums up perfectly why we need personalised medicine, and that’s exactly what gene editing has the potential to offer. If you can find the precise genetic fault in a chromosome, then potentially you can tailor an individual’s treatment to his or her specific needs.
Inevitably, the medical focus tends to be on cancer but treatments for diseases such as Huntington’s and cystic fibrosis may well benefit too.
Because it’s such an exciting prospect, scientists are competing fiercely in this ground- breaking field of research and, as financiers race to back them and personalised medicine moves out of the laboratory and into the hospital, their IP will no doubt become increasingly valuable.
In this issue of LSIPR, we talk to Horizon Discovery, one of the companies competing in the gene editing field, not just about the science but also about the problems and delays involved in patenting technologies and compounds as patents multiply.
Horizon’s chief technology officer calls it “a sort of free-for-all” but he’s optimistic that once the patents start to be published, and companies are required to take licences to use the technologies, things will settle down.
Elsewhere, Stephanie Pilkington of Potter Clarkson tells us that with careful patent draſting it’s possible to capture significant IP value in the closely related area of biomarkers—used to indicate the presence of a particular disease—which could also help develop personalised treatments.
However, she adds a note of caution: there’s divergence between the approaches adopted in the US and Europe, providing a challenging environment for those seeking to protect and develop their assets. Te good news is that with care, it’s possible to capture significant value in this clinically and commercially important area, she argues.
Martin Essex, Managing editor Contents
4 News 4 Sun Pharma to acquire rival Ranbaxy for $3.2bn 4 UK High Court strikes down Herceptin patents 5 Novartis and GSK in $14.5bn IP exchange 6 Aurobindo Pharma sued over Angiomax 6 Depomed settles with generics over Gralise dispute 7 Teva asks US Supreme Court to stay ruling in Copaxone case 8 Pfizer criticises Indian pharma patent policy 8 AstraZeneca ‘has value’ says former Pfizer lawyer 9 Mallinckrodt picks up Acthar in Questcor merger 10 Lilly beats back challenge to Alimta patent 10 Purdue sues Teva to block OxyContin challenge 12 Federal Circuit rules against Roche in Tamiflu case 12 Actavis wins Lialda generic appeal
14 IP strategy: Horizon Discovery Patients in a test tube
18 Case study The Copaxone battle
20 Expert comment Protecting biomarkers and personalised/stratified medicine
22 Expert comment Indian patent law: up for a fight
www.lifesciencesipreview.com
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