Eight HIV/AIDS Treatment Patents Challenged
from the errors-in-the-patent-system dept
Questionable drug patents that put lives at risk are finally starting to get more scrutiny. The Public Patent Foundation (better known as PUBPAT) is now challenging the validity of eight patents held by Abbott Labs around the HIV/AIDS drug ritonavir (branded Norvir). As PUBPAT notes, there's plenty of prior art that should have prevented these patents from ever being granted. The patents in question are 5,541,206, 5,635,523, 5,648,497, 5,674,882, 6,037,157, 6,703,403, 7,148,359, and 7,364,752. PUBPAT also notes that Abbott has faced controversy over its monopoly pricing in the past, such as when it raised the price of the drug from $1.71 per day to $8.57 per day. Having a monopoly lets you do that sort of thing...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aids, hiv, norvir, patents, ritonavir
Companies: abbott labs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
...
Ha ha, a LOLcats moment, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
Ugh. Fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grand Mission
Given the current state of the US Patent system, that strikes me as quite an ambitious mission statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis
and just more proof just how EVIL IP system today is.
that 400% increase a day is just plain sick, there ought to be laws cause they cant police themselves, and offenders should just be shot. PLAIN SIMPLE and ends the corporate greed , cause if you get caught YOUR dead instantly, then only the most evil beings would do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis
No, there oughtn't be laws. No more stupid laws, please! You believe the government will police their buddies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis
I believe everyone should make money, but when your talking about people's lives, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick in granting a monopoly that denies them access to treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis
Do you get angry when your phone call gets dropped? Are you some kind of phone Nazi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis
Should be: My God, Mike's a human; and hi grammar Nazis.
"get over it grammer nazis"
Should be: Get over it, grammar Nazis.
"and just more proof just how EVIL IP system today is."
Missing capitalization and a sentence fragment. Please revise and resubmit.
"that 400% increase a day is just plain sick, there ought to be laws cause they cant police themselves, and offenders should just be shot."
Should be: That 400% increase a day is just plain sick; there ought to be laws because they can't police themselves and offenders should just be shot.
"PLAIN SIMPLE and ends the corporate greed , cause if you get caught YOUR dead instantly, then only the most evil beings would do it."
Indecipherability aside, should be: This is plain and simple and would end the corporate greed, because if you get caught you're dead instantly, and then only the most evil beings would do it.
Love,
A guy who just thought something was funny, but not as funny as you losing your mind....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All Patents Must Be Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Patents Must Be Bad
I, for one, don't have a problem with that. But let's be clear: what you're talking about is NOT capitalism, which is the system under which we purportedly operate. The market is supposed to set the price, not the seller (beyond the obvious initial cost).
If you want to set up a corporatocracy in which sellers get to determine price as opposed to the market, feel free. But I wouldn't want to live there....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All Patents Must Be Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Patents Must Be Bad
No problem at all, unless your ability to do so it granted by patents that should never have been granted (which is what is being challenged).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Patents Must Be Bad
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Patents Must Be Bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Patents Must Be Bad
But in this case not only the patent is not in the best interest of the public safety, it is also being challenged as irregular because of prior art so in a sense those people took advantage of the public domain and with little or no research misappropriated something that didn't belong apparently also copying is hard in the physical world it does require R&D to copy stuff specially biological and chemical compounds.
Aside from that all maybe the most appeling argument is that competition although painful is better for all, not only you need to be the first to do something you need to execute and take great care of your public image which is better for consumers everywhere.
And with competition maybe the U.S. wouldn't be outsourcing healthcare to third world countries having insurance companies pay travel expenses, stay and medical bills, in what world it makes sense to board a plane, stay in hotel and pay for a translator to get an operation?
That alone should give pause to anyone defending patents and monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By using the same word ("monopoly") is association with two separate and distinct issues only leads to needless confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The latter assumes the absence of substitute products"
No it does not, that is only your personal assumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For example, an individual holds a patent on a pipe wrench that includes a unique, ergonomic handle. Otherwise it is just another pipe wrench of the kind that has been around for over a century. Since there seems to be an abundant number of tool makers who manufacture and sell pipe wrenches, by what means will the individual patent holder be able to demand and secure a monopolistic price? The individual loves his ergo-handle wrench, but it cannot be ignored that the hundreds of other pipe wrenches that do not have his ergo-handle (having instead other types of handles) are direct competitors vying for the attention of consumers.
In my experience it is truly a rare and unusual case where a manufacturer has a product in hand that does not have a large number of competing products of similar, if not identical, efficacy. This holds true for virtually every industry within which I have at one time or another been involved. Wrenches? Many competing, efficacious products. Pharma? Many competing, efficacious products. Etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just like I won't jump through hoops to make a three year old understand calculus, I am not going to jump through hoops to make you understand very basic economics. This isn't confusing, you maybe easily confused but that doesn't make this anymore confusing.
you can explain to me what you mean by "monopoly prices"."
The price that a monopolist can charge when they have a monopoly on something.
"For example, an individual holds a patent on a pipe wrench that includes a unique, ergonomic handle."
He has a monopoly on that and he can charge monopoly prices.
"Since there seems to be an abundant number of tool makers who manufacture and sell pipe wrenches, by what means will the individual patent holder be able to demand and secure a monopolistic price?"
By the means that he can prevent others from making that particular pipe wrench he can secure a monopoly price on that particular pipe wrench.
Don't confuse the fact that substitute products sold by competitors will lower the price of your product, that doesn't negate the fact that you have a monopoly on your particular product and what you are charging is the price that someone who has a monopoly on that particular product can charge. This is econ 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely. He can set any price he wants. Of course, whether or not he sells any of his ergo-handle wrenches at the price he wants is an entirely different matter.
BTW, there is nothing preventing one without a patent from doing the same thing.
The problem here, as I see it, is that you want to define the pipe wrench market in a wholly unrealistic manner by defining it solely in terms of a single product. This is almost akin to saying that Ford has a monopoly and can charge monopolistic prices because only Ford can make Fords. It ignores the existence of GM, Nissan, Toyota, Chrysler, Mazda, Hyundai, Kia, etc., etc., etc....all of which compete with Ford in the marketplace by offering their own distinguishing products.
Sorry, but I am not buying into an Econ 101 argument that limits a market to a single product by a single manufacturer, when in reality there are numerous other alternatives available to a consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I am defining the market for what he has a patent on as the market for what he has a problem on. There is no problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For has a monopoly on any car that someone calls Ford. That's fine. But when Ford has a monopoly on a particular design then Ford can charge monopoly prices on that design. There is a difference between having a monopoly on the tire vs having a monopoly on Goodyear.
"but I am not buying into an Econ 101 argument that limits a market to a single product by a single manufacturer"
It's not a single product by a single manufacturer as in a monopoly on the Goodyear tire. It's a product on the ability to prevent others from making a particular product and call it something else, like Firestone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Drugs are even easier because drugs become obsolete of natural bacterial/viral resistance that sets in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, that's irrelevant to the fact that they can charge monopoly prices. and, especially in pharma, it may turn out that one drug does much better at something, with fewer side effects, than does any competing drug, and so that person either has to pay monopoly prices for that drug (and it's not like patents help advance drug development, there is no evidence for that and they don't) or they have to suffer by taking another drug or not taking any drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nope there are no options.
Take it or die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this were true it would negate the purpose of having patents. Having a patent exists because it creates market inefficiencies by preventing others from freely selling something that they would otherwise be able to sell. This naturally drives price up. The pretext is that these market inefficiencies somehow magically facilitate drug development, a pretext that is backed up by no evidence whatsoever and is contradicted by plenty of evidence showing the exact opposite. The true reason for their existence is that pharmaceutical corporations spend tons of money on campaign contributions to get politicians to pass and maintain nefarious laws that increase prices and delay advancement. Patents need to be justified and so far I haven't seen any justification to have them. Not only do they increase prices but they hinder technological advancement and no one is entitled to a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hrmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hrmm...
"I don’t think you should blame pharmas for the government being duped into giving them these protections."
...what? First of all, no duping going on here. It's out and out PURCHASING. So, I shouldn't blame the Pharma companies for pushing for bad laws?
That seems odd....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hrmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hrmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrmm...
you are never allowed to criticize corporatism because that's communist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hrmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hrmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the alternative is ?
This is, MOST DRUGS that are no longer protected under patents are **NOT** manufactured by generic companies.
IE, the generic companies DO NOT make generic versions of the drugs that are not the most popular ones, and that are not the biggest money spinners.
That means, obscure drugs or drugs that are not used by many many people do not become available in generic form.
Patents do very little to stop other drug makers and generics from operating. Most drugs that generic companies do take up ofter the patent expires DO NOT DO SO for over a year (on average) after the patent has expired..
AND then ONLY if its a popular drug that will make them money, the rare drugs or specialist drugs do not get made by generics.
Generic companies are in it for the profit, they by law cannot do development on the generic drug (or they will have to get FDA approval and clinical trials).
So there is little or NO indication that patents of drugs have hurt the drug industry, and there is NO indication that generic companies do anything except clone drugs that sell well.
Generic companies cannot modify the drug in any way, because they rely on the original companies studies for that drug. (you know the studies that cost billions of dollars, to make sure they dont kill millions of people).
If you think generic companies are in it for the good of mankind you are sadly wrong, they are in it for the cash..
Who else in the drug industry, has the financial ability and the technical ability to develop critical drugs for a small number of people?
No one, so if a drug company spends $800 million in developing a life saving drug that will only help 100 people per year, they are NOT going to make a profit from that even with patents.
And a drug like that will not be manufactured by a generic company after the patent expires. As its not worth it for them to do it.
Generic companies CANNOT by law do R&D or development on their drugs. (if they do they are not generic).
So generic companies do no advance the science of drugs.
Dont believe me,, cool,, look it up yourself..
Why does this company that is complaining about these drugs take it to court ?
If there was priot art, then the patents would not have been granted, but they were. So clearly the patent office does not agree with you.. Too bad they are the ones that actually MATTER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And the alternative is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And the alternative is ?
Anonymous Coward, Sep 5th, 2010 @ 1:26pm
I'd ask you to back up a single claim in your ramblings, but that would probably be an exercise in futility.
sure, glad to help, and im glad you asked,, a single claim to back up.. !! ok.. done.. (its easy for me, as I tell the truth).
PATENT NUMBER: 5,541,206
FILED: Apr, 25, 1995
"this invention was made with Government support under contract number AI27220 awarded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Deseases. The Government has certain rights in this Invention
http://www.google.com/patents?id=OUgiAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&sour ce=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
GO TO THE WEB SITE, and freaking read it yourself, assuming you can understand it..
What more facts,, glad to help..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is ?
This being the case, perhaps you may want to examine and explain the scope of the patent's claims, and then explain what it is contained in the newly cited documents that raises a substantial new question regarding patentability.
This is not my area of expertise, so any insight you may be able to provide would be most helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SHOW us the Prior Art !
Go to the PUBPAT site, read it, and come back to us an explain what they are refering to as prior art ?
Then read the patent, (any of them) start with the first one
5,541,206.
READ that patent, and read PUBPAT page and then come back again and tell us what the PRIOR ART for this is.
And
WHY is PUBPAT NOW trying to get patents overturned that was
FILED in Apr 25, 1995 and issued in Jul 30, 1996.
So what prior art please Mike, explain it to us.
Then explain why PUBPAT took 15 years to start to whine about a patent, that will go into public domain soon enough anyway...
But this entire article is pointless unless you can explain the proir art, and why it took 15 years to discover there was this 'so called' but non existant prior art ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHA,, I ask for a simple explination,, but NO,,, cant happen :)
You cant provide the anwer to the question that I asked because its pure FUD and misdirection.
It is an article for its own sake, contains little or no basis in fact, and appears was intended to be believed by those who are too lazy to check Mikes facts...
I guess you are those people who are too lazy,, so be it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAHA,, I ask for a simple explination,, but NO,,, cant happen :)
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir206request.pdf
http://www.pubpa t.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir523request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir /ritonavir497request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir882request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir157request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets /files/ritonavir/ritonavir403request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir35 9request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir752request.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAHA,, I ask for a simple explination,, but NO,,, cant happen :)
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir206request.pdf
http://www.pubpa t.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir523request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir /ritonavir497request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir882request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir157request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets /files/ritonavir/ritonavir403request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir35 9request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir752request.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO prior art, Mike says there is plenty,, A Mike Lie ??
But no ofcourse not, that would make sense, instead PUBPAT goes after patents that are just about to expire anyway..
And they cannot (like Mike cannot) show the prior art they they talk about..
So mike says there there is plenty of prior art, if he is not lying, he will have that prior art to show us..
If he IS lying, he will remain silent and not show us the prior art that he claims there is..
So mike hows your reputation ? willing to back up your claims with,, you know,,, facts ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NO prior art, Mike says there is plenty,, A Mike Lie ??
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir206request.pdf
http://www.pubpa t.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir523request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir /ritonavir497request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir882request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir157request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets /files/ritonavir/ritonavir403request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir35 9request.pdf
http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/ritonavir/ritonavir752request.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still nothing, except a weak filing..
Clearly not !!.. how about you ??
Thanks for your nagging posts, once will do.. but anyway, did you READ any of those links you provided ?
The 'main' one is the first one ofcourse, so we'll look at it..
PUBPAT's opening statement is basically begging the court to take mercy on them, saying in other words, we have a very weak case, but please look at it anyway !!
They confirm this by making it
ex parte
Do you happen to know what ex parte means ?
It means they only want a judge to look at it, and not the interested parties or the steakholders. They just want to try to get legal action with the chance for others to defend their claims. Look it up..
They make 3 primary legal arguments in their ex parte claim, its ex parte because each of those 3 arguments are very weak, and none of them will hold up in court.
'056 patent
"The '056 patent claims componds and pharmaceutically acceptable salts of componds having the same central substituent as the compount of claim 1, SAVE ONE ADDITIONAL HYDROXYL GROUP
Right,, thats a strong case, "its the same, except for the bits that are different, it still looks like a molocule".
News flash, if its different ITS DIFFERENT,
Sigal,
Again they have a compound that is different but performs a similar function, again its different..
Ho. Is just a claim that someone taught it, or something similar. Again, that is not the same as developing, testing and patenting a specific sequence. And another sequency is even if it looks close does not mean its the same. It may be from the same genre, and look SIMILAR, but that is not enough very small changes in these drugs make massive difference in their function.
And again, why wait 15 years, and why only try for 'ex parte' ruling, which is like a temporary, and weak legal action. If its that important, and if they had a strong enough case they would not have to start the lodging with betting for mercy, and they would call the interested parties, and the patent holders to defend their patents.
But no, they try back door, ex parte, try to convince a judge to get a temporary restraint, (which they wont get) for a short time, until the drug goes into the public domain.
So again, im sure even you can see its a lost case, they even think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still nothing, except a weak filing..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]