Good post. The pr reinforces your point. This ruling does not cover the validity or the infringement of the patents. Affy brought the case, as I understand, so they would not have sued or needed to sue if they stole a patent rather jnj would have sued them initially.
I would also see Takeda (big brother) protecting it's investment and putting up a strong defense if jnj tries to unjustly rough up affy over hematide. Unlike jaggy's claim that this will be big boys trampling on little boys. JNJ knows that they will have a big player and not just small potatoes affy to contend with.
<<This ruling does not cover the validity or the infringement of the patents. Affy brought the case, as I understand, so they would not have sued or needed to sue if they stole a patent rather jnj would have sued them initially. >>
What has people concerned is that this does appear to be a self-inflicted wound. If this IP is in fact neither relevent to Hematide nor valid as a patent...then why bother going down this road at all, let alone proleptically? Well...there was a dispute in play, so rather than risk the costs of a full-blown lawsuit, opting for the costs of binding arbitration proceedings was clearly the better choice.
---I tend agree however, with the lead post of this thread...Hematide's mechanism for binding the EPO-R does not fall under the patent properties at issue, and one cannot patent a target, only a mechanism for hitting that target.
...anyway, the real issue is the road to approval of Hematide...which is starting to look more promising, not less.
" Before year end, the companies plan to discuss with the FDA the U.S. registration strategy for Hematide. Subject to feedback from the FDA, the plan is to pursue a New Drug Application (NDA) for treatment of anemia in dialysis patients, while continuing to evaluate the non-dialysis indication. The timeline for possible submission of the NDA will be aimed for first half of 2011, but will be finalized after the FDA meeting."