This is still being ground through the mills of justice. Not sure how an adverse decision might impact Celltech (or indeed how it is currently priced into stocks like MEDI...)
sciam.com
...The wrangling began after Celltech received a very broad patent in 1989 for making monoclonal antibodies. Genentech then initiated a proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claiming that it had invented the technology first and thus should retain patent rights.
The PTO held for Celltech. Subsequently, the two companies entered into a confidential settlement that resulted in a federal district court ordering on March 16, 2001, that the PTO should revoke Celltech's patent, slated for expiration in 2006, and issue a new one to Genentech, with an expiration of 2018. "The same claims that were about to expire in 2006 have a new lease on life in this important field in which recombinant antibody products are just coming to market," says Duncan Greenhalgh, a Boston attorney who co-authored an article on the MedImmune suit. Other drug firms using this critical technology now have to license it from Genentech until 2018, and the company could also simply refuse a license to a competitor. A press release issued by Celltech indicated that Genentech had agreed to compensate Celltech for royalties it would have received through the original 2006 expiration date. The agreement also gives the British firm a "preferential license" to the technology for the term of the new patent, according to court papers.
The effect of issuing a new patent to Genentech essentially results in a patent term of 29 years--from 1989 to 2018--allowing Genentech to reap unreasonable gains from licensing fees during the patent extension, in MedImmune's view. At the time that Celltech and Genentech filed for patents, a patent term was nominally 17 years from the date of issuance... |
