Cacaito,
The patent to Gene Voss was issued in 1989. Patent No. 4776848 was issued to Anthony Solazzo in 1987 for "Urethral fluid application device and system". (http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4776848) The following is the abstract for this patent:
--------------------------------------------------------
The present invention involves a urethral fluid application device and system for insertion of fluids with backflow prevention. The device includes a tubular member having a feed port at one end and an outlet port at the opposite end, a unidirectional channel connecting the two ports and a one-way valve permitting flow only from the feed port to the outlet port. The device also includes a flange about the tubular member for contact with and attachment to the glans penis, as well as attachment means located on the flange. The system includes both the device and a supply container with a nozzle adapted to interconnect with the feed port of the device.
--------------------------------------------------------
Gene Voss's patent which is the basis for VVUS's claims against HVSF was issued subsequent to the Solazzo's patent. If we go by your argument, the patent by Gene Voss would clearly be seen as infringing on the patent by Solazzo. In that case, Voss's patent would be seen as infringing upon Solazzo's patent.
So, now who is infringing upon who's patent. May be all this is not as simple as you may have initially thought.
Well so much for your statement "So if it is delivered intrameatally, it is the same as delivered intraurethrally and cover by Vivus patent."
Bottom Line:
HVSFD has a patent for a unique drug system "aqueous solution containing prostaglandin-containing liposomes and a detergent for lysing the liposomes", that treats erectile dysfunction when delivered to penis preferably intra-meatally.
The significance of the drug system is two fold:
One, It is delivered in liquid form which is better than a solid suppository as being less painful (by design urethra was intended for fluids not solids!).
Two, it can be stored at room temperature during manufacturing, distribution, storage, and delivery. This would impact the cost as well as the availability in less developed areas of the world.
The significance of "intra-meatal" delivery is in the fact that it is actually delivered to the meatus and therefore is less invasive, less painful, and consequently more user friendly. The patent would have indicated "intraurethral" if it was required to go deep into the urethra like the solid suppository pallet (sounds painful!) in the case of MUSE.
I hope that all these posts have helped.
Afaq Sarwar |
