>> For example, note how Immunex proceeded with development of Enbrel without a license for "immunoadhesins," of which Enbrel is an example <<
A great example, thanks!
>> Ditto for Xoma and INCY on BPI with a deal signed with BPI well along in phase II or III. <<
Glenn Nedwin was acting CEO for the precursor to Incyte (Ideon?) before he moved to XOMA as Director, Business Development. He realized that Incyte only had part of the bpi patent estate, and that XOMA had the remaining portion for the grabbing. XOMA thus knew of the situation from the beginning, and reassured investors time after time over a period of years that no license was necessary from Incyte. Bad example, but a good point regarding what it can cost to neglect relevant IP for too long. Pfizer isn't ignoring it, they just chose a different route than SmithKline Beecham, Novartis, BMY, AHP and others to deal with it.
Immunex ignored the GNE patent, which must have been obvious to them from the beginning. I used to talk with Susan Watson of GNE about the procedure long before she left, and she's done stints with two biotechs since...... the patent has been "out there" for awhile. If you ignore something, it ends up costing you dearly. While Pfizer isn't ignoring the patent, I hope that, if they can't show relevant prior art, it costs mucho bucks to have chosen this route.
>> Actually, I'd say it's not that exceptional for biotechs and pharmas to proceed with drug development before the whole intellectual property issues get sorted out; this may be happen even more frequently with "tools," but that's just my limited impression. <<
True, but it's cheaper to license early, before the other guy smells blood. Fact is, companies have the option of trying to circumvent a patent, and disclosures generally show up max 20 months after submission. I'll bet my bottom dollar that the IMNX license cost more that it would have two years ago.
This one is tough.... the patent issued long after the assay was in general use. There are several molecules out there, in development, that are covered by this patent. If it stands, it will be to SIBIA as C/B was to Stanford.
Please note.... while I do not believe that SmithKline Beecham, BMY and AHP would have taken licenses "after Cadus" if they believed that there was an outstanding issue with prior art, I have not studied the issue in depth. Cadus would certainly have won if the issue of prior art were a simple one, but............. I do not exclude the possibility that Pfizer has an ethical leg to stand on. Doesn't look that way, and I know from past experiences that I should be suspect, but I can't exclude it. |
