Replies to post #120742 on Biotech Values

[investorgold2002]

The patents at dispute here are not "Copolymer being used to treat MS" which is the 1972 patent

the patents at dispute here are "Copolymer with less molecular weight are less toxic"

it seems like a Novel finding (it's another matter that the patent was issued based on falsehoods...which is why you have inequitable conduct to invalidate)

[zipjet]

Don't you think "Lower molecular weight of Copolymer is less toxic"
is A NOVEL FINDING ?????????????

I think so.

How many times would you allow a company to patent the "same" treatment by narrowing the range of the components of the compound?

Do you really think that narrowing the range of the compound is "novel"?*

I do not. Copaxones second round of patent protection should fail - IMO.

ij

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_(patent)

[DewDiligence]

Don't you think "Lower molecular weight of Copolymer is less toxic"
is A NOVEL FINDING?

I’ll answer indirectly. To prevail in the Copaxone patent litigation as a whole, it is not necessary for NVS/MNTA to prevail on all four arguments against each patent; rather, it is merely necessary to prevail on one of the four arguments against each patent.

For instance, if NVS/MNTA can show they do not infringe a particular patent, they do not also need to show that that patent is invalid due to obviousness. Whether Teva/Yeda’s “discovery” of lower toxicity from a narrower range of molecular weights is or isn’t obvious may become moot in the context of the overall patent litigation if NVS/MNTA establish that their production process does not depend on a predetermined range of molecular weights (#msg-63695268).