tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post7004760604272195614..comments2024-03-25T10:31:40.979+00:00Comments on Tufty the Cat: Enforcing Second Medical Use ClaimsTufty the Cathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-40934974577083110942015-02-27T13:33:59.728+00:002015-02-27T13:33:59.728+00:00Extemporaneous probably relates to the actions of ...Extemporaneous probably relates to the actions of pharmacists who make up drug compositions for patients. They don't just count out pills, although the do more so now than in the past. They may, for example, take a tablet that is unsuitable for a particular patient, grind it up and make a nicely flavoured emulsion for them to swallow. A common act may the preparation of a solution of a lyophilized product (sold this way for storage stability) just prior to administration.<br /><br />The Swiss claims and the new compound for use claims do not claim methods of treatment, which is their reason for being. The scope of protection is still to decided, but Arnold is making a hash of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-51651854417506761962015-01-21T17:45:39.007+00:002015-01-21T17:45:39.007+00:00Thanks Tufty - just posted now on IPKAt:
http://i...Thanks Tufty - just posted now on IPKAt:<br /><br />http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/no-pain-for-actavis-warner-lambert-fail.html<br /><br />Arnold has very interesting things to say about why doctors and pharmacists don't infringe, following on from Jacob LJ in Actavis v Merck - covered in the last part of the blogpost. I think I am prepared to believe that under such a construction of a second medical use claim, doctors and pharmacists simply don't infringe (under normal circumstances), only the manufacturer does. Not sure where it leaves CCGs or the wider NHS - I can see routes by which they might be joint tortfeasors, for example.Darren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-75209098748536377242015-01-21T17:13:19.240+00:002015-01-21T17:13:19.240+00:00Very interesting Darren. I was wondering whether t...Very interesting Darren. I was wondering whether the definition of extemporaneous would have something to do with it (has it been defined anywhere?). Look forward to seeing what you have to say about Arnold's latest offering. I bet he gets something wrong, as usual.Tufty the Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-28183940543044692802015-01-21T16:11:29.931+00:002015-01-21T16:11:29.931+00:00Just minutes after posting the comment, I found th...Just minutes after posting the comment, I found there is a decision today, which I will write more about shortly.<br /><br />http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2015/72.htmlDarren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4665971923360779136.post-55947977924367469282015-01-21T15:44:22.496+00:002015-01-21T15:44:22.496+00:00Hi Tufty thanks for the article. I don't thin...Hi Tufty thanks for the article. I don't think section 60(5)(c) applies as there is not an "extemporaneous" preparation. So on the face of it doctors and pharmacists do infringe. Even though the public policy argument for the prohibition of patents on methods of medical treatment is that doctors and phamacists should not be at risk of infringement, under the law as it stands I don't think that they are actually exempt at all.Darren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.com