One inflammatory paragraph from the Pfizer release <<"The patenting of research tools raises serious issues for the future of innovation" said Paul S. Miller, senior vice president and general counsel of PFE. "To the extent that such patents are appropriately granted, we are prepared to pay reasonable and customary fees for the use of such tools, but not the royalties or fees that extend beyond either the scope of the patented claims or term of the patent, such as sought by SIBI.">>
Let's assume for the moment that everything else besides the phrase in bold is BS from Pfizer's lawyers (which may be BS as well; I do not know what really is being "sought" by SIBI), and focus on the issue of at what point payment of royalties may stop.
The first impression is that one should not have to pay royalties on sales of products developed with the help of a given patented technology after said patent expires. Apparently, this is how, for example, Cohen-Boyer-related royalty payments would be handled.
However, it is possible to argue otherwise as well. Recall that "converting biology to a medically, meaningful, FDA-approved product is a process that can take 10 to 15 years and 300 to 500 million dollars" (quoted from a recent interview with Geron's CEO - numbers seem in the ball park of what has been said elsewhere). What this may mean is that patents that cover "tools" useful in the very early stages of drug discovery may expire shortly after, or even before, derived products reach the market. The earlier the "tool" is used, the more important this point. How this is ultimately resolved would then have direct implications in the valuations of companies with important patent estates in "tools."
PB |
