Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Indications -- Stroke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (43)	3/31/2004 2:33:57 PM
From: Peter H. Proctor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70

Astrazeneca, stroke, Cerovive Dr Z: "My view is that "doctrine of equivalence" can be shifted one way or another, and that in claim 2. you should have covered other methods, not only topical". Dr P: The doctrine of equivalents (DOE) basically says that if a subsequent invention does the same thing in the same manner, etc. as in a previous patent, then it comes under that patent. This was modified by the Festo case ( since mostly overturned by the Supremes ) in ways that do not apply here. DOE is a slam-dunk if every element of the subsequent invention is in the previous patent and if the subsequent invention can be assembled by combining these elements. This is the case with, e.g., my '502 patent and Cerovive, the disulfate ( disulfonicacid ) derivative of PBN. The classic example of the DOE is that a basic patent for (say) a four-cylinder internal combustion engine is infringed by a six-cylinder engine or by one which just adds a radiator ( though the radiator might be patentable separately ). The engine works the same way, no matter what the permutations. This is so you don't have to list every little variation. True, in retrospect the DOE has been marginally eroded in the nearly two decades since I applied for this patent. So, now I would give volumes of exemplar molecules, just in case. For the same reason I would now specify "parenteral" in a separate claim, even though this is clearly implied in claim one, and specifically-mentioned several times in the rest of the patent. Remember, there are only two possibilities--- If it ain't topical, it is parenteral (systemic). But this is equivalent to wearing both a belt and suspenders-- either one is sufficient to keep your pants up. BTW, IRRC, in overturning Festo, the Supremes gave an appreciation of the unfairness of asking inventors to guess what the applicable rules will be decades later. Can't really comment otherwise. According to the Renovis prospectus, in the event of FDA-approval for Cerovive, AstraZeneca will pay Renovis (RNVS) a royalty in the "mid-teens". Every patent licensure agreement I ever saw specified that, if the licensee has to pay royalties to another party, these come out of the royalty stream of the original licensor. Under such circumstances, I doubt AstraZeneca cares much to whom they pay royalties. Peter H Proctor, PhD,MD nitrone.com Mirror: spintrap.com Cerovive is the registered trademark of the AstraZeneca Corporation.