Regarding next week's oral argument at the USPTO in DC, I heard that Ron Renaud and Maria Stahl (Senior Vice President and General Counsel) will finally reveal that it was in fact Colonel Mustard, who did it in the Dining Room with a Lead Pipe.
Could that also be interpreted that MRK knows of the inequitable conduct by GILD and/or its predecessor VRUS and this will form the basis to our defense for infringement?? Also could be true for Roche, IDIX, and now most recently, ABBV and ABT (Case 1:13-cv-02034-UNA Filed 12/18/13, see below*)
101 for FTO: interview all prospective inventors of the IP--do you suppose GILD did this prior to dumping $11 B to VRUS?
*Case 1:13-cv-02034-UNA was filed by GILD against ABBV and ABT on 12/18/13. How long before this information is disseminated to you GILD shareholders:
1. This case involves a scheme by two large pharmaceutical companies, Defendants Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (“Abbott”) and AbbVie, Inc. (“AbbVie”), to attempt to eliminate competition and dominate the market of drugs to treat the hepatitis C virus, known as “HCV.” To execute their scheme, the defendants falsely and knowingly represented to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) that they invented highly valuable methods of treating HCV that were, in fact, invented by plaintiffs Gilead Sciences, Inc. Gilead Pharmasset LLC, Gilead Sciences Limited, and their predecessor Pharmasset, Inc. (collectively “Gilead”) and others. Defendants made these representations despite the knowledge that the inventions for
which they claimed ownership had, in fact, been developed by their competitors [redacted]
* * *
15. On May 1, 2013, the same date that the PTO issued notices of allowances for the first two of AbbVie’s patents, Gilead notified AbbVie of its legal obligation to inform the PTO of Gilead’s prior pending patent application covering the Gilead Combination. AbbVie failed to do so. The PTO then issued Patent Nos. 8,466,159 (the ’159 patent) [attached hereto as Exhibit A] and 8,492,386 (the ’386 patent) [attached hereto as Exhibit B] to AbbVie on June 18 and July 23, 2013, respectively, to the following AbbVie “inventors”: [redacted]
Sentiment: Strong Buy
fitsdad55: I do not know the answer to your question.
1. go to usptodotgov (. for “dot”)
2. scroll over PATENTS on top left banner.
3. select PATENT PROCESS from scroll menu then CHECK STATUS
4. then select PUBLIC PAIR.
5. enter the CAPTCHA
6. Select Patent number for your search query.
7. enter 7307065 for the patent number.
8. select IMAGE FILE WRAPPER tab.
9. the arbitration ruling is the document filed on 12-09-2010 with the title “Miscellaneous Incoming Letter”, 25 pp.
Not surprising, the arbitration ruling makes no mention that the assignment conveying ownership of the disputed Pharmasset patent was signed (on behalf of Pharmasset) by the first named inventor of the Emory, et al patents.
The arbitration also makes no mention that there was ongoing litigation against Emory et al (Case No. 5:2010cv01487) concerning the Pharmasset assignment.
...you want me to say b/c of the methyl? OKay, 2'-Me Adenosine (or the 7-deaza analog) is a potent inhibitor of HCV b/c of the 2'-methyl group.
But, why is 2'-Methyl-2'-fluoro adenosine devoid of activity against HCV???
Is MK-0608 aka 2'-methyl adenosine? If so, why are the 2'-methyl nucs not Merck's property?
I am on no particular side.
BTW, that legal stuff from my post above is an excerpt from the Emory and Pharmasset litigation whereby Emory et al asserted precisely the same legal argument asIDIX has. the only difference is Emory stated that SOF, 6130, 6206 were 2'-fluoro derivatives and subject to an Emory license. I don't see the difference b/w that argument, which failed in arbitration, and IDIX argument (i.e."SOF, 6130, 6206 contains a 2'-methyl group and therefore interferes with the IDIX IP").
Lastly, I do believe that this is the legal argument that those bast@#ds at GILD will use against IDIX. I believe that GILD has taken the position that the first interference will rectify the second: because if IDIX had not made these compounds, they could not satisfy the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C, §112, ¶ 1.
But I'm no patent attorney.
Failure to comply with the enablement and written description requirements of 35 U.S.C, §112, ¶ 1.
Under Section 112 of the Patent Act, the specification must “contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 (emphasis added). A patent claim is invalid for lack of enablement if the written description fails to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention as broadly as it is claimed without undue experimentation. See, eg., Alza Corp. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Cortright, 165 F,3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
In order to practice the patented methods, a person of ordinary skill in the art must
be able to (i) make the beta-D-2’-fluoronucleosides (or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt or prodrug thereof) embraced by the asserted claims of the patents-at-issue and (ii) determine an effective amount of such compounds for the treatment of HCV. As of 2002, a person of ordinary skill in the art would encounter significant challenges in performing both of these aspects of the patented methods, especially given the limited nature of the disclosure in the specification relating to HCV, and could do so only with undue experimentation.
gatewayfamilymed: no need to apologize...people just post stuff without addressing the recipient (most of the time). Both interferences have to do with the same technology...my understanding is that the first interference (2012) deals with the chemical composition of the nucleosides (nucleotides) while the most recent interference (2013) deals with actual claims for treating HCV (biology stuff).
The first interference is No. 105,871, declared on 2/2/2012 and involves Idenix application No. 10,828,753 and U.S. Patent No. 7,429,572.
The second and most recent interferenceis No. 105,981, declared 12/3/2013 and involves Idenix U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600 and Application No. 11,854,218.
And FYI to ucdoc27, giguy_1999 is a GI doc who purportedly performs quite a few rectal-type exams, hence my comment about his head in others #$%$.
Per Document No. 995 ORDER ORDER ORAL ARGUMENT BD.R. 124 , entered on 11/21/2013, the oral arguments were set for, "7 January 2014, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern". The document you provided confirms this exact date. Hence, the original meeting date has changed.
IF a panel of arbitrators agrees with Roche's legal argument that PSI-7977 is part of the 2004 license agreement, then GILD's take could only be 15-20%.
"hasn't the senior party already been determined in the most recent interference?"
Yes. by the USPTO.
My understanding is that the USPTO (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) makes an initial determination of who is the senior party in an interference, but this can change.
For instance, the USPTO made an initial determination that IDIX was the senior party in the first interference (No. 105,871, declared on 2/2/2012) but GILD was determined later to be the senior party in that case.
Similarly, in the most recent interference (No. 105,981, declared 12/3/2013, today is 12/9/2013), the USPTO made an initial determination that IDIX was the senior party and this may change as well.