Replies to post #121955 on Biotech Values

[investorgold2002]

"or considered it an insignificant change"

sorry buddy. this is again inequitable conduct as far as I am concerned. If all studies(including safety conclusions) were pointed out to patent examiner including phase 3 human studies which presumably used higher m.w as claimed in the 1974 patent , then patent examiner may have concluded that the finding on a rat study maybe either insignificant or the claim cannot be reasonably extended to humans . By not disclosing prior art that was absolutely MATERIAL to the patentability of this claim, TEVA committed fraud or inequitable conduct and got something patented. the very fact that the same inventors that authored this patent also published those phase 3 human studies that were not appropriately disclosed or prosecuted would be clear and convincing evidence of intent to deceive...it cannot just be negligence or gross negligence

so sorry buddy zero-0% still on obviousness. I still contend the finding is every bit novel (if true). we know it is not true. Hence patent was issued based on fraud or inequitable conduct.

[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 ???