Replies to post #180538 on Biotech Values

[willyw]

RE: The Abbvie lawsuit against Gilead (and vica versa)...... this is a good read.
One can only speculate where it will end.

After following the GILD/IDIX infringement lawsuit last year it was *interesting* (or insert your own adjective) to see Gild infringing on Abbvie.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2674915-gilead-sciences-gets-ambushed-by-the-patent-troll-abbvie

"AbbVie (ABBV) has been granted five US patents that specifically claim use of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir, the drug combination that Gilead (GILD) sells under the trade name Harvoni."

=======================
I'm not saying that this will affect share price, market share, etc.

It is just an interesting and rather entertaining read.

~W

[willyw]

IDIX patent action invalidated against Gilead, (and as it pertains to the ABBV-GILD suits)

I'm replying to an older post of mine since there was a legal action today in the UK against IDIX

===============================
(please visit the link for the complete page~W)

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/141201/gild8-k.html

"Item 8.01. Other Events.

On March 12, 2014, the European Patent Office (EPO) granted Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Idenix)'s European Patent No. 1 523 489 (the '489 patent), which corresponds to the Idenix's U.S. Patent No. 7608600 ('600 patent) claiming compounds allegedly related to sofosbuvir and their use for treating hepatitis C virus. The same day that the '489 patent granted, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead) filed an opposition with the EPO seeking to revoke the '489 patent. Also on that day, Idenix initiated infringement proceedings against Gilead in the United Kingdom (UK), Germany and France alleging that the commercialization of Sovaldi? (sofosbuvir) in those countries would infringe the respective national counterparts of the '489 patent. In the UK, a trial was held in October 2014 to determine the issues of infringement and validity of '489 patent.

(This is the key paragraph ~W)
On December 1, 2014, the UK court invalidated all claims of the '489 patent on multiple grounds. Specifically, the UK court held that the '489 patent lacked novelty over Gilead's prior published patent application claiming the same compounds, the '489 patent lacked an inventive step because it did not add anything to the knowledge existing at the time and the disclosure in the Idenix's patent application was insufficient because it did not teach how to make the compounds or show which of the hundreds of billions of compounds claimed would have activity against viruses like the hepatitis C virus. The court also determined that if the '489 patent was valid, Gilead's sale of sofosbuvir would infringe the patent."
(end of quote)
==============================================

(my commentary)

So does this pertain to the Abbvie patents regarding methods of use?

Since Abbvie was granted and holds those patents there will be a number of issues contested, but one would be the ability to instruct. Abbvie presumably did not try to patent every drug combo under the sun.
If Abbvie is able to convey a methodology of selecting compounds which may have been unknown prior, was able to instruct how to evaluate and select the compounds, then perhaps this my be one of the issues faced in attaining and in keeping the issued patent. (keeping in mind that Abbvie was probably granted the patents on this very same basis)

This is one area where IDIX failed and thereby was denied in court, in one jurisdiction.

I saw this and it seemed to fit in and so I stuck er in here. : )

I do not think this will be the only issue, but I think it is one of the bigguns.