Syringe and vials of vaccine.

How Does Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Work, and Who Is Funding Its Development?

Cross-posted from Written Description, where it originally appeared on August 19, 2020. 

By Jacob S. Sherkow, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Nicholson Price, and Rachel Sachs

Moderna, Inc., a Cambridge, MA-based biotech company, is a leading contender in the race to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Moderna’s vaccine, however, works using a completely novel mechanism, unlike any other vaccine currently approved anywhere in the world. Despite this, the U.S. government—and two agencies in particular, the NIH and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)—has invested, heavily, in the vaccine’s development. This week, we explore how these investments interact through different forms of research partnerships, and what this says about IP, novel technologies, and innovation policy.

Read More

a pile of vaccine vials and a needle

COVID-19 Vaccine Advance Purchases Explained

Cross-posted from Written Description, where it originally appeared on August 5, 2020. 

By Nicholson PriceRachel SachsJacob S. Sherkow, and Lisa Larrimore Ouellette

No vaccine for the novel coronavirus has been approved anywhere. Nevertheless, governments and international organizations around the world are announcing deals for billions of dollars to procure tens of millions of doses of vaccines from companies that are still running clinical trials, including a $2.1 billion deal with Sanofi and GSK announced by the US on Friday. What’s going on? And what do these deals tell us about innovation policy for COVID-19 vaccines? In this post, we lay out the landscape of COVID-19 vaccine pre-purchases; we then turn to the innovation impact of these commitments, and finish by asking what role patents and compulsory licensing have to play.
Read More

Blister pack of pills, but instead of bills dollar bills are rolled up in the packaging

To Cut Prescription Drug Spending, Stop Delays for Generic Competition

By Beatrice Brown and Benjamin Rome

Prescription drug spending in the U.S. remains high and continues to rise, accounting for about 20% of national health expenditures. While generic competition is crucial for reducing drug prices, brand-name drug manufacturers can utilize several strategies to delay such competition by increasing the length of market exclusivity for their drugs.

Although brand-name drugs only account for 18% of all prescriptions filled, they comprise 78% of total drug spending. By contrast, equally-effective, interchangeable generic drugs can offer discounts of up to 80% off their brand-name drug counterparts.

Generic competitors can only be introduced after brand-name drugs have completed their period of market exclusivity, which typically lasts 12-16 years and is largely determined by the patents covering the drug. Brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers have strong financial incentives to prolong this market exclusivity period and delay entry of generic products.

Read More

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office building

Patent Fakes: How Fraudulent Inventions Threaten Public Health, Innovation, and the Economy

By Jorge L. Contreras, JD

The U.S. patent system gives inventors a 20-year exclusive right to their inventions to incentivize the creation of new technologies.

But what if you have a great idea for a new technology, but never actually create it, test it, or determine that it works? Is that patentable? Conversely, should the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) grant patents covering imaginary, fraudulent and otherwise non-existent inventions? Probably not, but it happens with alarming frequency, and it is causing serious problems.

Read More

Opportunities and challenges for user-generated licensing models in gene-editing

By Timo MinssenEsther van Zimmeren & Jakob Wested 

An earlier version of this contribution had been published in Life Science Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR).

A voluntary pool or clearinghouse model may give rise to a robust commercial ecosystem for CRISPR and could include special provisions for royalty-free research use by academics. Hence, there may be a path through the CRISPR patent jungle. But, there are many obstacles still in the way.

The revocation of Broad Institute’s patent EP2771468 reported and discussed here, marks the latest major development in a series of patent battles over the revolutionary and highly lucrative CRISPR-Cas9 technology (and other gene editing technologies) in the US and Europe.

While this is the first EPO decision in an opposition procedure concerning the Broad patent portfolio, the outcome may have implications for other related patents as the rationale for the revocation reflects a larger, systemic challenge based on the different rules regarding priority claims in different jurisdictions.

Read More

Will the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal step into the CRISPR patent battle?

By  Jakob Wested, Timo Minssen & Esther van Zimmeren

Another version of this contribution has been published in Life Science Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR).

The Broad Institute is facing a formidable task in defending the revoked CRISPR patent claims in their pending appeal at the European Patent Office (EPO). Ultimately, some of the issues might still be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. However, this might require a significant amount of legal and rhetorical agility.

“The Opposition Division’s interpretation of the EPC [European Patent Convention] is inconsistent with treaties designed to harmonize the international patent process, including that of the United States and Europe.”

This was the rather strong reaction of the Broad Institute after the EPO’s Opposition Division’s (OD) decision to revoke one of their CRISPR patents. It could, however, also be argued that the case presents a simple failure of the patent applicants to comply with the long-standing European practice to apply an “all applicants” approach when claiming priority under article 87 of the European Patent Convention.

Read More

Innovation Gaps on Life Science Frontiers

Join us in wonderful Copenhagen at our CeBIL Kick-Off Conference: ”Innovation Gaps on Life Science Frontiers? From Antimicrobial Resistance & the Bad Bugs to New Uses, AI & the Black Box”. The  Conference marks the start of the Novo Nordisk Foundation’s Collaborative Research Programme in Biomedical Innovation Law which is carried out within a unique network of international core partners, including internationally renowned experts at Harvard Law School’s Petrie Flom Center, Harvard Medical School/Brigham & Women’s Hospital, University of Cambridge, University of Michigan, and UCPH’s Department of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO).

Leading international experts, including i.a. our distinguished Bill of Health colleagues Glenn Cohen, Aaron Kesselheim; Nicholson Price, and Kevin Outterson, will discuss legal, economic, societal and scientific aspects of selected Life Science areas.

Time: Monday, 5 March 2018 09:00 – 18:00 (followed by a reception in the Gobelin Hall)

Venue: The Ceremonial Hall (Festsalen), University of Copenhagen, Main Building, Frue Plads 4, DK-1168 Copenhagen K

More information on  speakers, agenda and registration is available here and here.

Extended background:

Biomedical innovation is experiencing changes of epic proportions. Rapid progress in many scientific areas, such as gene editing, pharmacogenomics, artificial intelligence and big data-driven precision medicine, has greatly advanced the promises and opportunities of the health and life sciences. Nevertheless, the total number of truly new and innovative drugs receiving market approval is unsatisfactory. At the same time, some of the more innovative therapies that actually could reach patients have become extremely expensive or ethically problematic. These new technological possibilities raise many complex scientific, legal and ethical issues affecting many stakeholders, such as medical practitioners, regulators, patients and the industry.

To support the in depth study of these developments, the Novo Nordisk Foundation has awarded a grant of DKK 35 million for a new Collaborative Research Programme in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL). CeBIL’s overall aim is to help translate ground-breaking biomedical research into affordable and accessible therapies by scrutinizing the most significant legal challenges to biomedical innovation and public health from a holistic cross-disciplinary perspective. CeBIL is hosted by a new Centre for Advanced Studies at the University of Copenhagen’s Faculty of Law. The research is carried out within a unique network of international core partners, including internationally renowned experts at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, University of Cambridge, University of Michigan, and UCPH’s Department of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO). Moreover, CeBIL will collaborate with a broad network of stakeholder organizations and international experts within law, economics, life science, medicine, sociology and pharmacy.

This Kick-Off Conference marks the start of CeBIL which opened its’ doors on January 1st, 2018. Reflecting the research projects that will be at the focus CeBIL’s research during the first 5 years, leading international experts will discuss legal, economic, societal and scientific aspects of selected life science areas and debate future challenges and opportunities.

 

.

 

Errors in Patent Grants: More Common in Medical Patents

By James Love

Recently I have become interested in the frequency of a “certificate of correction” on a granted patent, after two efforts to establish federal rights in patents granted.

The first case involved the University of Pennsylvania.  We had identified five patents on CAR T technologies granted to five inventors from the University of Pennsylvania where there was no disclosure of federal funding on the patents when they were granted by the USPTO, as is required by law.  All five patents had been filed in 2014.    We had reason to believe the five patents should have disclosed NIH funding in the invention, and we were right. But the error had been corrected by Penn, and five “certificate of correction” documents were granted by the USPTO in May 2016, something we had overlooked, in part because the corrections to patents are published as image files, and were not text searchable.

The second case involved the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.  KEI had identified two patents listed in the FDA Orange Book for the drug Spinraza,  which were assigned to Cold Spring Harbor, and which had not disclosed federal funding.  KEI was interested in pursuing a march-in case for Spinraza, on the grounds of excessive pricing.  The cost of Spinraza in the first year was $750,000, and the maintenance doses were priced at $375,000 per year.  Researchers listed on the two patents had received funding from the NIH to work on the subject of the two patents. Read More

Innovation and the Firm: Vertical Integration in Patent-Intensive Industries – Seminar 9/8 at the University of Copenhagen

Looking forward to hear Professor Peter Lee’s (UC Davis) talk on “Innovation and the Firm: Vertical Integration in Patent-Intensive Industries” at the University of Copenhagen on Friday, Friday, September 8th 2017 from 10:00 – 12:00. If you are interested to join, please register here.

Abstract of Professor Lee’s talk:

Recent scholarship has highlighted the prevalence of vertical disintegration in high-technology industries, whereby distinct, specialized entities along a value chain transfer intellectual assets between them. Patents play an important role in vertical disintegration, for they lower the cost of technology transactions between upstream suppliers and downstream users.

This presentation, however, draws on empirical accounts to explore the peculiar persistence of vertical integration in patent-intensive fields. In biopharmaceuticals, agricultural biotechnology, and information technology, firms are increasingly acquiring technology providers rather than simply licensing their patents. This dynamic is even evident to a certain extent in university-industry technology transfer, where universities and commercializing firms frequently engage in institutional meshing to transfer patented technologies. Read More

Patenting Bioprinting Technologies in the US and Europe – The Fifth Element in the Third Dimension

By Timo Minssen

I am happy to announce the publication of our new working paper on  “Patenting Bioprinting Technologies in the US and Europe – The 5th element in the 3rd dimension.” The paper, which has  been co-authored by Marc Mimler, starts out by describing the state of the art and by examining what sorts of bioprinting inventions are currently being patented. Based on our findings we then discuss what types of future innovations we can expect from the technological development and how far these would and/or should be protectable under European and US patent laws.

The paper is forthcoming in: RM Ballardini, M Norrgård & J Partanen (red), 3D printing, Intellectual Property and Innovation – Insights from Law and Technology. Wolters Kluwer, but the working paper is already available on SSRN. Read More