Member Info for hangs2left

Is this the insolvency manager,,if so why has he and his wife bought 18% of the company?.

Anyway I’m in for the ten bagger or bust

And don’t call me Shirley: )

That must be a sell surely?

Hope it makes sense as cooking, doing washing,hanging washing etc etc as writing. Hope trp become as busy soon which I’m sure they will once agreement has been released

Must say I’m a lot more optimistic about a beluga runs released and good news than anything over last few years airing for news to arrive . TRP could jump to 2p within a trading week

Since a well was last spudded. I’ve still got a large holding in trp just hope it’s good news on next rns

Stop drinking heavily

How about Deepverge market cap dropping to 35 million and Microsaic m/cap increasing to 35 million and then merge!

When the price had soared July to September last year no major holders sold as for an RNS on their holdings being reduced. Does that not say they expect a lot higher price coming.

Well after not buying for a long time decided today was right to buy 4K more. Hope my instincts right

Can’t be much longer!

About time!

Gonna be news next 2 weeks

Collaboration, global co named as it goes into human trials. 125million on that alone

Predictions anyone! Merck for me.

Are we on for a vertical takeoff!

Last one I’m getting to excited..yes it’s one horse in grand national that wins but there’s always one that wins and many others placed with a big payday.
As the pharmaceutical industry continues to shift toward biologic-based drugs, including monoclonal antibodies, protecting the underlying technology has been and continues to be a priority for companies. Indeed, patents covering these antibody drug products can be worth – literally – billions of dollars, and that amount is likely to keep growing. However, as the science and case law in this area has evolved, biopharmaceutical companies now face steeper hurdles in obtaining the broadest possible patent protection, even when compared to only a few years ago.
The Evolution of the Antibody Patent Process
As with any drug, patenting therapeutic monoclonal antibodies as early as possible in the drug development process is crucial to protect the underlying invention. In the early days of antibody discovery for therapeutic development, protection could be obtained with minimal disclosure of the actual antibody. But as the art and case law have evolved, companies now need far more data to obtain the broadest scope of protection. For that reason, it has become more of a challenge to determine the best time to file with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). After the America Invents Act (AIA), it is a race to the USPTO to be the first to claim your invention, but you may lack the requisite data to enable you to obtain patent protection in the end.
Take, for example, patents which disclose the antibody by either the paratrope (the part of the antibody that binds to the antigen or the target protein) or the epitope (the part of the target protein that the antigen binds to.) Back in the 1990s, a company could pursue broad patent protection by merely claiming “an antibody that binds to antigen (fill in the region),” without disclosing an actual antibody that has been shown to bind that antigen. Companies would also obtain more narrow

And.
Trademarks
Jurisdictions
Expert Analysis
Local Insights
Events

Search
We use cookies If you're happy with cookies click proceed.
Find out more
Proceed
Patents

Most read 2019: Antibody case law clearer in the US than Europe
Pharma innovators say clearer standards on how monoclonal antibody patent applications are reviewed at the USPTO and US national courts have made it easier to file patents there than at the EPO


By Charlotte Kilpatrick
September 05 2019
In-house sources at Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb and a European pharma innovator say the differences in how the US and European patent offices and national courts review monoclonal antibody applications make filing patents clearer and safer in the former.

In Amgen v Sanofi, the Federal Circuit concluded that claiming a broad class of antibodies that could bind to a sequenced target is not enough, and that innovators must provide sufficient examples of new antibodies to support their claims.
This is not the case at the EPO; which, unlike its counterpart across the pond, still considers applications with broad functional class claims. And the added clarity that limits the scope of what can be protected in a claim gives more certainty for drug makers filing at the USPTO.
“The antibody case law is more developed in the US than in the EPO or national European courts,” says Karine Crepin, vice president and head of biologic patents at Sanofi in Paris. “We hope to get more clarity and guidance with time when cases arrive at the Technical Boards of Appeal.”
These therapies are worth a lot of money for pharma innovators. Humira, a monoclonal antibody therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, generated $25.6 billion for AbbVie in 2016. Getting the right patent protection can be worth billions of dollars for drug makers.
“A fundamental difference between the offices is the inventive step approach in Europe for antibodies – compared to the US, where sequence-based claims are generally viewed as non-obvious,” says Paul Golian, vice president and general counsel of IP for Bristol-Myers Squibb in New York.
“The US office has taken the view that an antibody with a novel structure, defined by the amino acid sequences of the variable regions, is not obvious and, therefore, meets the non-obviousness requirement,” he adds.
Golian says the EPO, by contrast, has taken the view that the same antibody would be obvious.
To overcome an antibody inventive step rejection at the EPO, the patent applicant must establish that the claimed antibody has an unexpected technical effect or functional

Monoclonal Antibody
19 July 2021
by Tiansong Zheng
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office
Your LinkedIn Connections
with the authors

In biopharmaceuticals, an antibody patent is one of the most valuable patents in the field. A claimed monoclonal antibody (see Table 1) can be defined as:

an antigen or an epitope on an antigen to which the antibody is directed;
a hybridoma producing the antibody; or
amino acid sequences constituting the antibody.
It is preferable if the antigen to be directed by the claimed antibody is a novel and inventive one. If it is novel and inventive, a monoclonal antibody patent can be defined directly by the antigen and a patent claim with the broadest scope can be granted. If it is not novel and inventive, although an antibody can still be claimed by a hybridoma

producing the antibody or amino acid sequences constituting the antibody, it will be unclear whether such a defined antibody can be considered to be inventive enough (see Table 2).

The biotech section of the Patent Examination Guidelines regarding patentability of a monoclonal antibody was mended in 2020 (see Table 3). The amendment entered into effect on 15 January 2021