I created an “Organic Patents” Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/OrganicPatents/
Author Archives: David Rucando
UPSTO’s Patent Term Caclulator
Cabazitaxel Method Claims Unpatentable
September 21, 2017
MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, (Petitioner)
v.
AVENTIS PHARMA S.A. (Patent Owner)
Case IPR2016-00712
Patent 8,927,592 B2
The PTAB ordered that Sanofi’s (Aventis Pharma S.A.) patent claims to uses of Cabazitaxel have been proved to be unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.
Cabazitaxel
4α-acetoxy-2α-benzoyloxy-5β, 20-epoxy-lβ-hydroxy-7β, 10β-dimethoxy-9-oxo-ll-taxen-13α-yl(2R,3S)-3tert-butoxycarbonylamino-2-hydroxy-3-phenylpropionate.
Trippy Synthesis of Salvinorin A Analog
September 15, 2017
Scripps and USC researchers report a 10-step synthesis of 20-norsalvinorin A.
Improved synthesis should help chemists to invent new salvinorin A analogs to sidestep its psychoactive effects while preserving its analgesic effects. Salvinorin A, a hallucinogen produced by the plant Salvia divinorum, is promising for treating itch and pain by activating the kappa-opioid receptor while avoiding the mu-opioid receptor, which has been associated with opioid abuse.
So far Scripps has a few patents and applications directed to other classes of Kappa Opioid ligands.
US9,682,966 Kappa Opioid Ligands
US9,345,703 Kappa Opioid Receptor Effectors and Uses Thereof
US2016/0257685 Kappa Opioid Receptor Effectors and Uses Thereof
US2015/0210673 Kappa Opioid Ligands
Probably a few new patent applications are in the works. I haven’t seen any patent publications yet.
Salvinorin A & 20-Norsalvinorin
Link to C&E News Science Concentrated Article:
Onglyza® and Kombiglyze® XR (saxagliptin) Patent Survives Challenge from Mylan
September 12, 2017
Mylan and other generic manufacturers petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute an inter partes review of AstraZeneca’s patent claiming compositions including saxagliptin. AstraZeneca markets saxagliptin as Onglyza® and Kombiglyze® XR for diabetes.
Case IPR2015-01340 / Patent RE44,186 E
The PTAB’s Administrative Patent Judges (APJ) decided that the petitioners did not show with preponderance of the evidence that the claims of Reissue RE44,186 of U.S. Patent No. 6,395,767 would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. Particularly, saxagliptin was not obvious over “compound 25.”
Saxagliptin:
Saxagliptin Structure
Prior art: “Compound 25”
Structure of “Compound-25”
State of the Art:
Experienced medicinal chemists (Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art [PHOSITA]) knew saxagliptin bound to DP 4. But they did not have detailed knowledge of DP 4’s active site for guidance in designing inhibitors because DP 4’s crystalline structure was unknown. At the time of invention, knowledge of DP 4’s binding requirements came from structure-activity relationship (“SAR”) studies.
Lead Compound Analysis:
Petitioners cited a publication by Ashworth containing Compound-25, which they argued would have been selected as a lead compound. (Ashworth et al., 2-“Cyanopyrrolidides as Potent, Stable Inhibitors of Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV,” 6(10) Bioorganic &Med. Chem. Lett., 1163–66 (1996)).
“Compound-25” would not have been selected as a lead compound
The PTAB reasoned that a medicinal chemist would not have selected compound 25 as a lead compound because, among other reasons, (i) Compound 25 was only one of several other similar compounds (ii) Compound 25 only had in vitro data obtained using non-physiological conditions, (ii) there were two much more advanced compounds in clinical trials (i.e., NVP-DPP728 & P32/98) and (iii) Ashworth’s subsequent publication focused on different series of compounds.
Clinical Compounds NVP-DPP728 & P32/98
The PTAB’s analysis could have ended there. But even accepting Petitioners’ assertion that a skilled artisan would have chosen compound 25 as a lead compound, the PTAB determined that the Petitioners didn’t demonstrate that a skilled artisan would have had reason to modify compound 25 with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed saxagliptin.
Check out PatentDocs’s Post for further discussion:
http://www.patentdocs.org/2017/09/mylan-pharm-v-astrazeneca-ab-ptab-2017.html
Draw-ahead feature for chemical structure drawing applications
PerkinElmer Informatics, Inc. patented a “Draw-ahead feature for chemical structure drawing applications.”
Albeit usefull at times, I often turn off the type-ahead / Quick-Type feature on my iPhone to prevent embarasing errors. I would likely turn off a draw-ahead feature just in case too.
August 18, 2017
The Fastest USPTO Technology Center is 1620 – Organic Chemistry!
August 15, 2017
USPTO Technology Center 1620 has the shortest delay before sending an Office Action.
According to the Official Gazette, TC1620 has a <18-month delay.*
* Numbers include RCE reworks that substantially reduce the delay of organic chemistry patent applications.
The Average filing date for an organic chemistry patent application receiving an office action in the last 3-months is November 15, 2015.†
† Report last updated on June 30, 2017.
See also: PatentlyO Post
JULY-2017 USPTO REPORT: PATENT ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
Velcade® Patent Validated by CAFC
August 8, 2017
Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)
A Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) panel reversed the district court’s holding that Millennium’s licensed patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,713,446 (“the ‘446 Patent”) was invalid for being obvious. The ‘446 Patent claimed a lyophilized mannitol ester prodrug of Bortezomib (See Claim 20). Claim 20 was not obvious according to the panel because, among other reasons, the inventors unexpectedly “discovered that the reason for the dramatic improvement in dissolution and stability for this formulation was the formation of a new chemical compound during lyophilization: the claimed ester of bortezomib and mannitol.”
-
Claim 20: The lyophilized compound D-mannitol N-(2-pyrazine)carbonyl-L-phenylalanine-L-leucine boronate.
Earlier, the district court concluded that the new compound was obvious reasoning that Bortezomib was already known (U.S. Patent No. 5,780,454), Lyophilization is already known known, and that the claimed compound is “the inherent result of an allegedly obvious process” of lyophilizing bortezomib and mannitol together.
- There was no evidence that anyone “foresaw, or expected, or would have intended, the reaction between bortezomib and mannitol, or that the resulting ester would have the long-sought properties and advantages”
- “The district court did not find that the prior art taught or suggested that the claimed new compound would be formed, or taught or suggested making the claimed new compound by any method, or taught or suggested that this new compound would have the properties of stability, solubility, and dissociability that it exhibited.”
- “No reference taught or suggested reacting bortezomib with mannitol, and no reference hinted that such an esterification reaction might occur during lyophilization.”
- “No reference taught or suggested that the product of such lyophilization would be a new chemical compound that would solve the problems that had inhibited development of bortezomib in oncology.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.