Replies to post #180529 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

How could [ABBV] possibly patent the combination of 2 gild drugs?

Technically, they didn’t: at the time of ABBV’s patent application, GILD’s hadn’t yet acquired Pharmasset.

See #msg-104485013 for related commentary.

[linhdtu]

Well, from reading the gild 10Q, because the gild compounds were already known (ie they were either in P1 or P2), Abbvie patented the combination of a bunch of possible compounds even though they were not approved or nowhere near it.

What boggles my mind is how such a construct can be patented ? It says a lot about the way the law or rule is constructed and how humans interpreted it. Everything seems arbitrary. It's a real let down and an eye opener for me.

As an aside, US SC says that not only corporations are people, and because of that people have right of speech hence no limit on political contribution and lately people have right of religious beliefs and thus so do corporations.

Well, that is a lot of BS to me. A corporation although is a legal entity, it is a far stretch to believe it is a person and as a person it is 1 million time more powerful than you or me.

How does a society remain free and equal if there exists a minority of people who overwhelms everyone else ?

[willyw]

It's a little sticky and I may have this wrong, but the general principles may be;

Think of the IDIX lawsuit
They sued Gilead because they had the earlier patents.
IDIX has failed to win in court simply because the patents are vague and undeveloped. As one guy explained; You can patent a anti-gravity car or 1000 MPG carburator....great ideas.... but unless you also provide the tools, and research and testing that provide instruction as to how to build those items, you don't have a patentable idea.
I *think* the court ruled that IDIX had the idea of registering all these drugs, drug classes, etc, but they did not provide instruction, research and documentation as how to make safe workable compounds; at least the ones IDIX was suing Gilead for.

===============
So taking that concept of instruction..... perhaps Abbott licensed the technology that showed how you could bolt together your compounds to provide a working drug regimen. I *think* they are claiming that their research and assigned patent provided the instruction that allowed Gilead to take the puzzle pieces and assemble them. I am guessing that Abbott/Abbvie is claiming that without the instruction that Abbott (now Abbvie) provided, Gilead would essentially be in the dark, swinging their stick at a pinata 15 feet away. : )

=============
Gilead of course, will rebut that they had been working with drug cocktails in HIV much earlier. I think the lynch pin may be though if Gilead utilized Abbvies patented/protected process for instruction. I think the issues are that it isn't enough to say we had cocktails in HIV. Abbott/Abbvie may be saying that they have the intellectual property that instructs that DAA cocktails must be used w/ HCV, how to combine them, how to do complete the process that provides the means for someone else to do it.

IF Gilead *was* first, why didn't they do what Abbott did and register? (it appears it is something one can register)

This is a general and simple summary of what I think the principles are. I may be in the ballpark, but incorrect on specifics. Someone will come around and explain it better than me. :)

~W