[Ecommerce] RE: [Ip-health] (International Herald Tribune) Patents: Agreeing to disagree?

[Clift, Charles]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
This was stated by a parliamentary committee in the UK in March this year.

"108. A number of criticisms have been levelled against the current system =
for encouraging
the development of orphan drugs. The lack of competition drives up orphan d=
rug prices
and this may have important economic implications for PCTs and other health=
care
providers. An example of this is nitric oxide, which was available for year=
s and, unlicensed,
cost very little (it cost approximately =A32,000 to supply a neo-natal unit=
 with nitric oxide for
one year71). Two clinical trials proved the benefit of inhaled nitric oxide=
 and it was
approved and received a patent in the US and EU on this basis.72 Since lice=
nsing, nitric
oxide now costs many times more (it was estimated that supply of nitric oxi=
de for the same
neo-natal unit would now cost over =A363,000 per year)."

URL: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect=
/cmhealth/42/42.pdf

However, if it is the same patent, it was revoked by the European Patent Of=
fice, in November 2004. In short:

"For these reasons it is decided that:
1.  The decision under appeal is set aside.
2.  The patent is revoked."

The full ruling is here:

http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t010443eu1.pdf

I can't quite understand what this might have to do with orphan drugs - I m=
ay have missed something.

Charles Clift

-----Original Message-----
From: ip-health-admin@lists.essential.org on behalf of Hember, Miles
Sent: Thu 06/10/2005 5:13 PM
To: 'Thiru Balasubramaniam'; ip-health@lists.essential.org; ecommerce@lists=
.essential.org; a2k@lists.essential.org
Subject: RE: [Ip-health] (International Herald Tribune) Patents: Agreeing t=
o disagree?

This e-mail is subject to the disclaimer set out below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There should be some clarification of the statements reported by Thiru here
- there is no way that nitric oxide as a substance could in any way be
patented, and the pre-existing use for neonates was clearly well
established, so obtaining a patent on this application is also improper
(though possible if examination was careless).

Does anyone know the details of the products, companies, and patents
concerned - if the existing supplier imposed a price hike of this magnitude
with the excuse of some patent restriction, then the government department
concerned should be investigating and ensuring that the patent is valid and
being correctly used.

Can the journalist concerned be contacted to clarify her sources, and if
necessary publish a retraction of incorrect statements. It looks rather too
much like a blatant sympathy appeal based on a misunderstanding of the
facts, which ends up weakening the rest of the case for more reasonable
rights systems than those we are in danger of being 'given' by the politica=
l
process.

Miles


-----Original Message-----
From: Thiru Balasubramaniam [mailto:thiru@cptech.org]
Sent: 06 October 2005 14:11
To: ip-health@lists.essential.org; ecommerce@lists.essential.org;
a2k@lists.essential.org
Subject: [Ip-health] (International Herald Tribune) Patents: Agreeing to
disagree?

-----------------

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/05/business/iprsolutions.php

-----------------

*Patents: Agreeing to disagree?*

*By Victoria Shannon* International Herald Tribune
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2005


*PARIS*
<http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=3DPARIS&sort=3Dswishrank> In
Britain, a typical neonatal unit used to pay about =A32,000 a year to
supply nitric oxide for newborn babies with breathing difficulties.
After the substance was patented in 1999, the cost rose to =A363,000,
according to a study published this year by Parliament in London.

(SNIP)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy or
forward this transmission.  Please return the message to the sender by
replying to it and then delete the message from your computer.  The Generic=
s
Group provides e-mail services for both itself and a number of its
independent spin-out companies.  The Generics Group shall not be held liabl=
e
to any person resulting from the use of any information contained in this
e-mail and shall not be liable to any person who acts or omits to do
anything in reliance upon it. The Generics Group does not accept
responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent.
_______________________________________________
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health