Det kan godt vaere emnet allerede har vaeret debateret, men hvad ser I af impact paa Genmab (om noget) i forbindelse med det infringements soegsmaal, som Genentech har anlagt mod Glaxo den 12. April, hvor de anklager Glaxo for a bryde Genentech's Cabilly III patent som foelge af produktion og salg af Arzerra i USA?
Sagen udspringer ogsaa af (og er anlagt mod) Lonza Biologics, der er anklaget for at leverer ofatumumab til GSK i England velvidende at Glaxo efterfolgende importere Arzerra til salg i USA.
Maaske bare det saedvanlige puste-sig-op syndrom mellem store medicinal virksomheder?
Sagen udspringer ogsaa af (og er anlagt mod) Lonza Biologics, der er anklaget for at leverer ofatumumab til GSK i England velvidende at Glaxo efterfolgende importere Arzerra til salg i USA.
Maaske bare det saedvanlige puste-sig-op syndrom mellem store medicinal virksomheder?
27/4 2011 07:35 troldmanden 0
41723 Hej zip
Det er faktisk nyt for mig. Har ikke umiddelbart set det debateret herinde og Genmab har heller ikke udsendt en meddelelse. Har du et link?
HVIS Genentech vinder en sådan sag så får det betydning for Genmab idet deres royalties og milestones vil blive mindre. Men hvorvidt de overhovedet har mulighed for at vinde sagen er for os almindelige mennesker ret svært at finde hovde og hale i. Sådan er et med patent sager. Det er også typisk nogetder rækker ud i flere år. Så om alle omstændigheder vil det ikke have nogen betydning her og nu.
Big pharma er generelt meget aggresive i patent krigen. Så på den måde er det nok ikke så så stor en overraskelse
Det er faktisk nyt for mig. Har ikke umiddelbart set det debateret herinde og Genmab har heller ikke udsendt en meddelelse. Har du et link?
HVIS Genentech vinder en sådan sag så får det betydning for Genmab idet deres royalties og milestones vil blive mindre. Men hvorvidt de overhovedet har mulighed for at vinde sagen er for os almindelige mennesker ret svært at finde hovde og hale i. Sådan er et med patent sager. Det er også typisk nogetder rækker ud i flere år. Så om alle omstændigheder vil det ikke have nogen betydning her og nu.
Big pharma er generelt meget aggresive i patent krigen. Så på den måde er det nok ikke så så stor en overraskelse
Hej T,
Her er et scannet PDF dokument med anklagen:
http://patentdocs.typepad.com/files/genentech-v-glaxo.pdf
81 sider i alt, men hvis du slaar op med side 8 kan du finde det mest specifikke. Resten er backup for deres claim
Her er et scannet PDF dokument med anklagen:
http://patentdocs.typepad.com/files/genentech-v-glaxo.pdf
81 sider i alt, men hvis du slaar op med side 8 kan du finde det mest specifikke. Resten er backup for deres claim
Som jeg lige forstår det, har Genentech fået godkendt en ny version af et gammelt patent, hvorefter de omgående anlægger sager til højre og venstre. Åbenbart en velkendt gammel sag ifølge www.law.com:
Days-Old Genentech Patent Ignites New Infringement Battle With Human Genome Sciences and GSK
Nate Raymond All Articles
The American Lawyer
April 15, 2011
Twitterdel.icio.us DiggRedditGoogle BookmarksNewsvineLinkedInMixxStumbleupon
PrintShareEmailReprints & PermissionsPost a Comment To grasp the value Genentech Inc. places on its so-called Cabilly patents--which cover methods for producing antibodies using recombinant DNA--look no farther than the company's litigation record. As we've reported, Genentech fought for priority rights to its Cabilly II patent for nine years before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and it's spent almost as many years fending off antitrust allegations and invalidity and infringement suits focused on Cabilly II in the federal courts.
Here we go again: On April 12 the PTO issued a Genentech a new Cabilly patent--dubbed Cabilly III--and already the suits are flying.
The same day the new patent was issued, Genentech's lawyers at Durie Tangri and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison filed a 10-page Los Angeles federal district court infringement suit against GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, and Lonza Biologics. The infringement claims center on Arzerra, a GSK leukemia drug manufactured by Lonza, and Benlysta, a Glaxo treatment for lupus manufactured by HGS that won U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval last month.
Also on April 12, lawyers for Human Genome Sciences Inc. at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett filed their own declaratory judgment suit in Delaware federal district court against Genentech and a non-profit that shares rights to the Cabilly III patent. HGS is seeking a ruling that the new Genentech patent is invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed by Benlysta.
Last Tuesday's declaratory judgment suit comes just four months after Human Genome Sciences filed an almost identical suit in the same court over the Cabilly II patent. And in February, HGS filed a Delaware federal district court antitrust complaint against Genentech claiming that it colluded with Celltech to enforce a 29-year monopoly in the market for DNA-derived human antibodies for pharmaceutical applications. Those antitrust claims, as we've reported, first surfaced in a 2003 suit brought by MedImmune. That case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in a landmark 2007 decision that allowed licensees to challenge patents they've licensed and altered standing requirements for patent plaintiffs in declaratory judgment suits.
The stakes are high for all of the companies involved. Human Genome CEO H. Thomas Watkins said in a statement Thursday that the FDA's approval of Benlysta ushered in "a promising future" for the company, which is hoping to become profitable by 2013.
Genentech is represented by Daralyn Durie of Durie Tangri and Kenneth Gallo of Paul Weiss. (Durie declined comment.) A spokeswoman for Genentech told us the company was "confident in the validity and enforceability of the Cabilly patents, and...we believe that Arzerra and Benlysta infringe the Cabilly III patent."
Human Genome counsel Henry Gutman of Simpson Thacher declined comment. Glaxo lawyer Lisa Ferri of Mayer Brown referred our request for comment to GSK, which sent us a statement denying infringement of "any valid and enforceable claim of the Cabilly II or Cabilly III patents."
This article originally appeared in The Am Law Litigation Daily.
Days-Old Genentech Patent Ignites New Infringement Battle With Human Genome Sciences and GSK
Nate Raymond All Articles
The American Lawyer
April 15, 2011
Twitterdel.icio.us DiggRedditGoogle BookmarksNewsvineLinkedInMixxStumbleupon
PrintShareEmailReprints & PermissionsPost a Comment To grasp the value Genentech Inc. places on its so-called Cabilly patents--which cover methods for producing antibodies using recombinant DNA--look no farther than the company's litigation record. As we've reported, Genentech fought for priority rights to its Cabilly II patent for nine years before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and it's spent almost as many years fending off antitrust allegations and invalidity and infringement suits focused on Cabilly II in the federal courts.
Here we go again: On April 12 the PTO issued a Genentech a new Cabilly patent--dubbed Cabilly III--and already the suits are flying.
The same day the new patent was issued, Genentech's lawyers at Durie Tangri and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison filed a 10-page Los Angeles federal district court infringement suit against GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, and Lonza Biologics. The infringement claims center on Arzerra, a GSK leukemia drug manufactured by Lonza, and Benlysta, a Glaxo treatment for lupus manufactured by HGS that won U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval last month.
Also on April 12, lawyers for Human Genome Sciences Inc. at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett filed their own declaratory judgment suit in Delaware federal district court against Genentech and a non-profit that shares rights to the Cabilly III patent. HGS is seeking a ruling that the new Genentech patent is invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed by Benlysta.
Last Tuesday's declaratory judgment suit comes just four months after Human Genome Sciences filed an almost identical suit in the same court over the Cabilly II patent. And in February, HGS filed a Delaware federal district court antitrust complaint against Genentech claiming that it colluded with Celltech to enforce a 29-year monopoly in the market for DNA-derived human antibodies for pharmaceutical applications. Those antitrust claims, as we've reported, first surfaced in a 2003 suit brought by MedImmune. That case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in a landmark 2007 decision that allowed licensees to challenge patents they've licensed and altered standing requirements for patent plaintiffs in declaratory judgment suits.
The stakes are high for all of the companies involved. Human Genome CEO H. Thomas Watkins said in a statement Thursday that the FDA's approval of Benlysta ushered in "a promising future" for the company, which is hoping to become profitable by 2013.
Genentech is represented by Daralyn Durie of Durie Tangri and Kenneth Gallo of Paul Weiss. (Durie declined comment.) A spokeswoman for Genentech told us the company was "confident in the validity and enforceability of the Cabilly patents, and...we believe that Arzerra and Benlysta infringe the Cabilly III patent."
Human Genome counsel Henry Gutman of Simpson Thacher declined comment. Glaxo lawyer Lisa Ferri of Mayer Brown referred our request for comment to GSK, which sent us a statement denying infringement of "any valid and enforceable claim of the Cabilly II or Cabilly III patents."
This article originally appeared in The Am Law Litigation Daily.
27/4 2011 08:14 troldmanden 041727 Hmm ok så forstår jeg det lidt bedre. Det er altså et helt nyt patent de har fået. Det gamle forsøgte de også at sagsøge til højre og venstre men det blev underkendt.
HVIS genentech kan vinde dette nye slagsmål så antager jeg det vil betyde mindst en 25% redukton af milestones og royalities til Genmab
HVIS genentech kan vinde dette nye slagsmål så antager jeg det vil betyde mindst en 25% redukton af milestones og royalities til Genmab
27/4 2011 10:49 141735 Hej Cabilly patent striden er ikke nyt stof. Det dukker op til overfladen af og til, og her nu i en ny forklædning. Søgsmålet er anlagt mod GSK og jeg mener fra hukommelsen at der har været snak om at det kan betyde op til 5% royalty til Genentech. Det får ikke umiddelbar nogen betydning for Genmab, da royalties højst sandsynligt ikke modregnes i Genmabaftalen, medmindre der er taget eksplicit forbehold for søgsmålet i aftalen mellem GSK og Genmab og det har vi faktisk ikke nogen viden om, heller ikke efter at aftalen er blevet tilrettet i Juni 2010.
Det er på ingen måde usædvanligt at der foregår disse patentstridigheder, da det er en fiks måde at forsøge at beskytte sin omsætning på, selve patentstridighederne som sidst dukkede op i 2006-07 er dog ikke af sådan en karakter at GSK ikke kan markedsføre Arzerra, så det er noget der kan komme på et tidspunkt. GSK og Genmab har begge udtalt at de ikke tillægger Cabilly patentet noget virkning, men det skal de jo omvendt også sige.
Det er på ingen måde usædvanligt at der foregår disse patentstridigheder, da det er en fiks måde at forsøge at beskytte sin omsætning på, selve patentstridighederne som sidst dukkede op i 2006-07 er dog ikke af sådan en karakter at GSK ikke kan markedsføre Arzerra, så det er noget der kan komme på et tidspunkt. GSK og Genmab har begge udtalt at de ikke tillægger Cabilly patentet noget virkning, men det skal de jo omvendt også sige.
