3 ms·

> Can someone explain just exactly how do drug patents work? Can this legally work? I understand that normally patents cover processes or working inventions. I

> Can someone explain just exactly how do drug patents work? Can this legally work? I understand that normally patents cover processes or working inventions. I didn't think that the precise chemical bonds were required to be produced in the final output of a patent. A big part of it is that drug patents cover the process of production that gives the final molecule with viable yields. Pharmaceutical companies try to write patents broadly enough, or just file enough different patents, that there's no way to get to the final product without infringing one or more of their patents. The idea here is to come up with a sufficiently novel synthesis pathway that the original patents don't cover it, and thereby don't apply. Derek Lowe has a good discussion: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/01/18/automated-route-finding-and-patent-busting http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/01/18/aut...

onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>Pharmaceutical companies try to write patents broadly enough, or just file enough different patents, that there's no way to get to the final product without infringing one or more of their patents. The patent can also be thrown out if it's to broad, no? The broader it is , the better the chances that there's prior art. Sure it costs money, but then there's money to be made so someone will sue
- belorn 8y ago
  In theory yes. In practice we except the patent to be rejected by a government department which value is measured in number of granted patents, or a special court which is infamous known to favor patents over rejecting them and which previous chief Judge was himself a previous patent lawyer. The cost of getting a patent invalid is also very minor. There is no requirement to pay back the extracted rent by the time the patent get invalidated. The author also has many chances to rewrite a challenged patent and remove over broad claims. The risk vs reward of making broad claims in patents is evidentially in favor of risk.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

>>Pharmaceutical companies try to write patents broadly enough, or just file enough different patents, that there's no way to get to the final product without infringing one or more of their patents. The patent can also be thrown out if it's to broad, no? The broader it is , the better the chances that there's prior art. Sure it costs money, but then there's money to be made so someone will sue

belorn 8y ago
In theory yes. In practice we except the patent to be rejected by a government department which value is measured in number of granted patents, or a special court which is infamous known to favor patents over rejecting them and which previous chief Judge was himself a previous patent lawyer. The cost of getting a patent invalid is also very minor. There is no requirement to pay back the extracted rent by the time the patent get invalidated. The author also has many chances to rewrite a challenged patent and remove over broad claims. The risk vs reward of making broad claims in patents is evidentially in favor of risk.