During the Q&A #drugdevelopmentinnovation after my panel I was told to be careful about throwing shade on the obvious nature of some pharma patents and to learn from the expert declarations that are submitted in litigation. I highlighted many of these experts are not independent.
Eg: Prof Valentino Stella is considered one the leaders in prodrugs, a technique that's been around for at least 40 years. He has been used by Gilead Sciences to provide expert statements for a number of their drugs that use the prodrug technique e.g Viread and recently Sovaldi.
To my point of independent experts in patent cases: can someone be independent when Gilead gives a gift of US$1 million to a professorship fund at The University of Kansas honouring their expert declarant Prof. Stella? bit.ly/2SK28wJ
My point is not about Prof. Stella or throwing shade. It's about bringing light on do we actually have independent experts in patent cases when industry has many them in their pockets. Is it in the financial interests of any of these experts to say certain science is obvious?
And the remarkable thing is that if you read enough of pharma litigation docs, depending on whether a company/expert is defending a patent or invalidating one, the argument of obviousness on that same science conveniently changes. Where is the consistency?
If we are to get a better understanding of what really is obvious science in patent law, we need to change how expert testimonies work and whether we can really have independent witnesses, whether it be for a generic or a branded company. Otherwise patent reform will be difficult
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
