Scammers Sending Out Notices Pretending To Be From HADOPI, Demanding Money For Infringement
Mark Waid Explains: Culture Is More Important Than Copyright & It's Time To Look For Opportunities In Sharing

Eight HIV/AIDS Treatment Patents Challenged

Patents

from the errors-in-the-patent-system dept

Fri, Sep 3rd 2010 07:24am -

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…

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: abbott labs

65 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Eight HIV/AIDS Treatment Patents Challenged”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
65 Comments
fogbugzd (profile) says:

Grand Mission

From the article, “Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a US-based nonprofit legal service group working to ‘protect the public from the harms caused by errors within the patent system, particularly the harms caused by undeserved patents and unsound patent policy,'”

Given the current state of the US Patent system, that strikes me as quite an ambitious mission statement.

NAMELESS ONE says:

my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis

get over it 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.

AJ says:

Re: Re: Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis

I agree Anarchy isn’t the solution, but our current system is leading to just that. When people’s lives are in danger, and you are artificially inflating the treatment/cure due to greed, expect anarchy to reign. The most dangerous person in the world is one that has nothing left to loose.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis

This has nothing to do with Nazis. If there are ads, the syntax and grammar are immaculate. Ads and errors should be mutually exclusive. It’s the same reason why gamers get angry over buggy releases. WHAT’S THE MATTER GOOD-CODE NAZIS?

Do you get angry when your phone call gets dropped? Are you some kind of phone Nazi?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: my god mikes a human and hi grammer nazis

“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….

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: All Patents Must Be Bad

“Would you care to explain the problem with charging what you want for something you create?”

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….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: All Patents Must Be Bad

This is a bunch of nonsense, there is almost no evidence that patents promote progress and almost all of the evidence suggests that it only hinders progress. The person with the patent doesn’t have to conduct R&D if they don’t want but that doesn’t mean they can prevent others from freely profiting from the R&D that they conduct.

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

Danny says:

Re: All Patents Must Be Bad

There is a big difference between getting some exclusivity to recoup R&D costs but its quite another to go to the government to basically get a neverending source of money by locking out anything and everything that might be competing. In a setup like that the market isn’t setting the price, the company is.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: All Patents Must Be Bad

Assuming they created those things there is nothing wrong with charging what you want, but there is also nothing wrong in reclaiming patents to the public domain if they are in the public interest, think of it as “imminent domain” type of thing.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

To say that a company has a “monopoly” because it holds a patent is one thing, but to say that it is able to engage in “monopoly” pricing is quite another. The latter assumes the absence of substitute products in a particular market that confers the power and ability to control prices. The mere holding of a patent (“monopoly”) confers no such power and ability to control prices.

By using the same word (“monopoly”) is association with two separate and distinct issues only leads to needless confusion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps to end my confusion you can explain to me what you mean by “monopoly prices”.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Perhaps to end my confusion “

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“He has a monopoly on that and he can charge monopoly prices.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“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.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“This is almost akin to saying that Ford has a monopoly and can charge monopolistic prices because only Ford can make Fords.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“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.”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“a market replete with perfectly acceptable and efficacious alternatives”

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.

Da says:

Hrmm...

Perhaps we can force Ferrari to sell their cars at a lower price so we can all drive Enzos. They obviously work much better than my Yugo, with many fewer side effects. Why would I want to spend my time and effort on innovation, if someone can come along behind me and copy my product? I don’t think you should blame pharmas for the government being duped into giving them these protections.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Hrmm...

You didn’t read the article, did you? Prior art invalidates these patents. They shouldn’t exist. Stupid Ferrari analogies do not apply. Oh, and this awesome line:

“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….

Da says:

Re: Re: Hrmm...

Last time I checked, lawmakers made the laws. So, they are the only ones to blame for passing bad laws. And, if the patents are invalid, the patent holder isn’t to blame either, whoever granted the invalid patent is. I’m just say’n, if the system is being abused, fix the system, don’t complain about the inventor / innovator.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Hrmm...

PubPat is requesting reexaminations on the basis of what is presumably other references that did not come to the fore during the prosecution of the applications that matured into the eight patents, and in PubPat’s opinion these references raise substantial new question regarding patentability. Whether or not its opinion has any validity is, of course, something that the USPTO will address before a formal reexam order issues. Importantly, even if such an order issues, it by no means reflects that any of the patents are of questionalble validity. That is something that would be determined during the course of the reexams.

darryl says:

And the alternative is ?

This would be all good and valid, if it was not for one simple fact that Mike seems to avoid like the plague.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: And the alternative is ?

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&source=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..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is ?

I take it you have the expertise in pharmaceutical development to read and fully comprehend the subject matter claimed in the patent to which you link, which expertise extends to work by others such that you can quickly determine the pertinency of the reference being relied upon by PUBPAT in its attempt to convince the USPTO that the legal requirements for declaring a reexamination are met in this case.

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.

darryl says:

SHOW us the Prior Art !

What 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 ?

darryl says:

HAHA,, I ask for a simple explination,, but NO,,, cant happen :)

Classic,, and just what I expected..

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..

darryl says:

NO prior art, Mike says there is plenty,, A Mike Lie ??

If there is plenty of prior art, then I would expect Mike and PUBPAT to show that evidence.

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 ??

darryl says:

Still nothing, except a weak filing..

Seriously? Are you that bad at reading?

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.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Scammers Sending Out Notices Pretending To Be From HADOPI, Demanding Money For Infringement
Mark Waid Explains: Culture Is More Important Than Copyright & It's Time To Look For Opportunities In Sharing
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...