>Katcher’s E5 patent is for a process of extraction. If a subset of active ingredients is identified and the minimal set of rejuvenating proteins becomes known,

>Katcher’s E5 patent is for a process of extraction. If a subset of active ingredients is identified and the minimal set of rejuvenating proteins becomes known, his patent becomes worthless. Naturally occurring proteins cannot be patented. This is not legal advice, but I firmly disagree with these statements. Individual naturally occurring proteins cannot be patented, but: A method of treating aging by administering the individual protein can be patented. A specific combination (subset) of naturally occurring proteins that is otherwise not really found together in nature in an isolated manner, is likely patentable A highly concentrated extract (or other means of making the particular combination) that is not found in nature is patentable A method of making the combination is likely patentable. A compound that begins as a naturally occuring protein, but is modified in some way for therapeutic efficacy (pegylation, truncation, fusion, etc.) is patentable A formulation suitable for administration (with buffers, stabilizers, etc.) is patentable. There are many inventions that go into making a therapeutic. Yes the compound itself provides the cleanest and most valuable patent protection, but natural products can be protected. Then there is regulatory exclusivity, which can be an entirely different ball of wax that does not necessarily have anything to do with patents at all.