Steve:
Patent claims are written with "breadth" to maximize potential return. Most patents end up being worthless. The "629" patent has been licensed by Aurora, Lilly (sublicense), Neurocrine and Novartis. To date, it appears to be respected and to have value.
I hate broad claims that, by serendipity, are enforced to cover stuff beyond an original concept. I am one of the first to stand up and bitch when innovation is unfairly restricted. However, I am also a big believer in allowing broad interpretation of bench work to stake out a given technology for the best interests of the issuing country (I once wrote some valuable claim language regarding anti-bacterial and human monoclonals, backed by good data and examples, only to have it abandoned due to political stuff). In this case, I feel that the SIBI argument is very solid. That is...... yeast cell, mammalian cell, whatever...... if I were working at the bench subsequent to the priority date for the SIBI patent *and* if I were not aware of prior art (previous work) which would invalidate claim 1 of the SIBI patent, I would feel ethically restricted by the claims.
So, when you talk to KDUS IR, I'd ask for "prior art" that invalidates the patent. If I were a KDUS investor (sorry for salt in the wound, but I'm certainly glad that I'm not), I wouldn't accept rationale regarding yeast versus mammalian cells. But that's my own personal take, not having looked thoroughly for prior art or having spoken with KDUS attorneys (disclaimers, disclaimers).... please get your own. Here's claim one.....
1. A method for identifying compounds that modulate cell surface protein-mediated activity by detecting intracellular
transduction of a signal generated upon interaction of the compound with the cell surface protein, comprising:
comparing the amount of transcription of a reporter gene or the amount of reporter gene product expressed in a first
recombinant cell in the presence of the compound with the amount of transcription or product in the absence of the
compound, or with the amount of transcription or product in a second recombinant cell; and
selecting compounds that change the amount of transcription of a reporter gene or the amount of reporter gene product
expressed in the first recombinant cell in the presence of the compound compared to the amount of transcription or
product in the absence of the compound, or compared to the amount of transcription or product in the second
recombinant cell, wherein:
the cell surface protein is a surface receptor or ion channel;
the first recombinant cell contains a reporter gene Construct and expresses the cell surface protein;
the second recombinant cell is identical to the first recombinant cell, except that it does not express the cell surface
protein; and
the reporter gene constructs contains:
(a) a transcriptional control element that is responsive to the intracellular signal that is generated by the interaction
of an agonist with the cell surface protein; and
(b) a reporter gene that encodes a detectable transcriptional or translational product and that is in operative
association with the transcriptional control element. |
