>>If I understand this whole patent deal correctly, should SEPR develop a new Prozac for LLY, companies like Barr could still make a generic version of the old Prozac.<<
billy,
that's my understanding too. I think the problem comes from the fact that SEPR's Prozac ICE is already "in" the old Prozac, so it could seem like Lilly, by its licensing agreement with SEPR, has unfairly doubled the patent lifeof its key drug. "Addition by subtraction" is apparently not understood by the critics, namely, SEPR's molecule, to the extent it has a different pharmacological effect, is innovative and deserving of patent protection. The FDA and patent office understand this, which is why they granted the patents in the first place. SEPR first came to my attention when they got the Allegra patent and I think that was the watershed decision, that isomers of patented drugs are patentable. I don't see anything changing that, which is why I can't imagine this flap will do anything other than let some shorts out with a little less pain. |
