Biotech Values

[investorgold2002]

For all the fans of obviousness defense out there

exwannabe,zipjet, dew, et al

I will throw a party with drinks (optionally babes) in detroit if we win COM patent case on Obviousness alone and Copaxone is launched some time in 2011.

Humor me:
Claim: Lower M.W Copolymer is less toxic.

A: Assume there is no prior art that says changes in m.w of a co-polymer or similar combination of polymers can lead to variation in toxicity.

Scenario 1)- Deserves a Patent
Assume there were some adverse events in human clinical studies of higher m.w
Assume it is sorta widely accepted and evidenced that toxicity in rats implies toxicity in humans, don't you guys think this is a NOVEL finding(considering A) and deserves it's own patent aside from the 1974 patent ?? If it can save people's lives-I am sure you guys agree it is not insignificant change.!

Scenario 2) Does not deserve patent - FRAUD/Inequitable conduct
Assume it is sorta widely accepted or evidenced that toxicity in rats implies toxicity in humans. However, in this drug, assume a human clinical study showed no toxicity in higher m.w
NOT disclosing ALL relevant prior art (the human clinical studies that showed a contradiction no toxicity with higher m.w) the patent would not have been granted but for the fraud.

Scenario 3)Does not deserve patent - FRAUD/Inequitable conduct + Prolly criminal charges for fabrication?

Assume higher m.w rat study that apparently resulted in 2 dead rats can somehow be proven to be fabricated. then again it is inequitable conduct to invalidate the patent. the patent would not be granted but for the fraud.
But in this case, there maybe more than just invalidating patent ...possible criminal charges for fabrication of results ???