Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Trial on Crestor patent begins in D. Del. on 22 Feb 2010

An article by Ben Hirschler in Reuters on patent issues with the statin drug Crestor contains the following quip:

"It's CPR (Crestor Patent Risk), not CRP [C-reactive protein ] that requires more attention."

Crestor has great economic potential, with Lipitor going "off-patent" in November 2011. The matter of CRP is an additional driver:

In theory, extending Crestor's use to people with normal cholesterol and raised levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) could add some 6.5 million patients in the U.S. alone, adding billions of dollars to sales of the $4-a-day drug.

The trial begins on February 22, 2010 before Judge Joseph Farnan in the District of Delaware.

The Crestor patent had been targeted by Article One.


**The outcome of the litigation will inform us whether or not the Crestor patent was a "quality" patent. On this topic, the IAM folks are pushing patent quality metrics:

The cover story for IAM issue 40, which published last week, is all about patent quality. More specifically we asked the patent ratings business of Ocean Tomo - our official patent ratings partner - to tell us which US law firms, according to OT metrics, obtain the highest quality patents for their clients. In the article, we publish top 10 rankings that cover four specific areas - consumer electronics, healthcare, industrials and informaiotn technology - as well as a top 20 ranking that covers all areas

More than ten years ago, a different group of folks were pushing "patent citation" metrics at "Intellectual Property Today."
Same old flim flam. Plus ├ža change et plus c'est pareil !

Back in the Dec. 96 issue of Intellectual Property Today, LBE wrote:

BN [Breitzman and Narin ] promise to review all the studies which have shown the importance of highly cited patents. There are many papers that have questioned the value of patent citation. n12

n12 Edlyn S. Simmons and Nancy Lambert, "Patent Statistics: Comparing Grapes and Watermelons", Proc. Montreux 1991 Int. Chemical Information Conference published in "Recent Advances in Chemical Information", Royal Society of Chemistry, Spec. Publ. 100, 1992.; see also Stuart M. Kaback, Nancy Lambert, and Edlyn S. Simmons, "Patent Citations: Source of Insight or Nothing to Get Excited About?", August 1994 meeting of American Chemical Society [this reference notes: "Patent citations turn out to be quite different in character from the citations we may be familiar with in the citation literature."]; E. Simmons, "Patent family databases 10 years later", Database, Vol. 18(3), Pg. 28, (June, 1995).
As I noted in June, 1996, some highly cited patents may be of pioneering status. However, since all highly cited patents are not of pioneering status, one cannot use a high citation frequency as a proxy for value. All factors leading to high citation must be analyzed. Even in prestigious prizes, such as the Nobel or the Lasker, all factors involved must be considered n13.



http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/07/patent-quality-arguments-of-ocean-tomo.html [including the text: The Ocean Tomo authors have presented no convincing arguments to support
the proposition that examination search thoroughness and search quality is as good or better
today than it was five years ago. At best, they have equated "more" with "better", and have
not even identified the source of "more."]

**And, don't forget Linus Torvalds: "One recalls Torvalds is the fellow who advised his people not to read patents, sort of setting the public disclosure function of patents on its head."



Post a Comment

<< Home