There is a common misunderstood difference between the term invention and the term innovation. Taking an invention that has already been patented and using it in a new way or for an additional purpose would be considered an innovation using that invention. Innovations are not patentable. The fact that OM included an addition to the invention (the sachet and addition processing to enable that) was an alteration of the original invention, so can be considered a new invention and patentable. I hope I got all of that correct - that is my understanding as a patent holder and someone who has filed several applications.
If a drug evolves into other treatments wouldn't that be a reason to extend patent protection? Since B COV-19 would be injected, i'm assuming the patent would mimic Absssi? OM has 5 patents, would be nice to know how long any COV-19 treatment would be covered... Possible it depends on FDA guidance and eventual determination what route they go with delivery for a new patent? Injection was mentioned but pill form was just tested... Would be another huge boost to the stock price if Leo could add a new patent for COV-19...
BEVERLY, MA – November 1, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) Innovation Pharmaceuticals, (OTCQB:IPIX) (“the Company”), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, is pleased to report that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office recently announced the allowance of another application directed to Brilacidin.
The “Notice of Allowance” is directed to Brilacidin oral, buccal, and sublingual pharmaceutical compositions. The allowed claims for Brilacidin pharmaceutical compositions include liquid compositions, such as rinses. Previously issued U.S. Patents for Brilacidin include U.S. Patent Numbers: 8,802,683; 9,155,738; 9,457,027; and 9,795,575.
“These new patent protections further bolster the intellectual property estate that we’ve built around Brilacidin, our novel Host Defense Protein mimetic drug candidate,” commented Arthur P. Bertolino, MD, PhD, MBA, President and Chief Medical Officer at Innovation Pharmaceuticals. “The new allowances are of particular relevance to Brilacidin for the treatment of oral mucositis, in head and neck cancer patients, administered as a convenient oral rinse. The Company currently is preparing for an End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA to discuss Brilacidin oral rinse continued development in addressing this area of large unmet need. Future clinical applications of Brilacidin in liquid form to treat other indications may potentially include chronic sinusitis and infections related to periodontal disease.”
Good point. Speaking of SALTS....Pfizer was almost in hot water ...when infact every NDAs drugs would have been in deep **it. Just based on SALT.
Pfizer product - Amlodipine and it was NDA filed as Amlodipine besylate. However, Dr. Reddy Labs changed it to Amlodipine maleate SALT and filed for an NDA.....it was a big mess. Initially, Reddy Labs won the case in the superior court and then at the end lost in the lower court.
In Pfizer's application to the PTO requesting term extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156, Pfizer identified Norvasc® as the product for which regulatory approval had been obtained, and stated that Norvasc® was “further identified” as amlodipine besylate.
In December 2001 Dr. Reddy's filed a new drug application, known as a “paper NDA” under 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(2), proposing to market amlodipine as the maleate salt, for the uses for which Pfizer had obtained federal approval, based on the data that Pfizer had provided to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Reddy's acknowledges that amlodipine maleate is covered by the claims of the '909 patent, but argues that the term extension applies only to the besylate salt because that is the registered product. The district court agreed with Dr. Reddy's.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
