CN  /  EN




Can Drug Repositioning Be Applied for Patent?

  • 分类:最新消息
  • 作者:华讯知识产权
  • 来源:
  • 发布时间:2019-06-02 15:39
  • 访问量:


Can Drug Repositioning Be Applied for Patent?


  • 分类:最新消息
  • 作者:华讯知识产权
  • 来源:
  • 发布时间:2019-06-02 15:39
  • 访问量:

Factually, the “existing drugs” as described in the Drug Repositioning are not limited to the existing drugs introduced to the markets, and also cover the potential candidates that were/are currently in the pre-clinical or clinical research. Although it is not a new concept, the drug repositioning may lower the failure rate and R&D costs. In consideration of the high failure rate in the clinical research of new drugs in these years, looking for the new indications of the existing drugs becomes a new strategy that is extremely attractive and can optimize the costs/benefits of the drug manufacturers; and what is more important, the drug repositioning is specially applicable for the treatment of rare disease. Due to fewer quantity of the patients suffering from rare diseases and limited market, it is hard to make profits within the development framework of traditional drugs, many enterprises are not willing to enter these fields. The drug repositioning strategy can make up the new drug development gap in this field.

However, the challenges that the drug repositioning faces are mainly from the following three aspects:

1.      Patent

First of all, the drug repositioning is challenged by the intellectual property right access threshold. The patent application and implementation of new indications are key reasons to drive the pharmaceutical enterprises to develop the drug repositioning, because it has large influences on the benefits of the products. If the new purpose of a kind of existing drug is innovative, this kind of drug will be protected in most of the markets in the world; however, under the most circumstances, new indications have had literatures reported or researches conducted, except that the patent owners can prove that the indications developed are not within the scope of the existing patent; otherwise, this kind of drug repositioning is hard to be patent protected, therefore, it is especially important to determine the targeted indications and patent protection degree as soon as possible.

2.      Regulation Policies

The USA NDA categories I and VI (new indications) and sNDA (new indications) are applicable for the applications for drug repositioning. The categories III (new agent) and IV (new combo) are applicable for the drug repositioning or new agents. The approval of most drug repositioning is before the expiration of the patent for the originally researched drugs. In addition, the drug repositioning used to treat the new indications is given by the FDA a three-year exclusivity period.

3.      Organizational Obstacle in the Industry

If one project is not belonging to the core R&D direction of the company, the project is very likely to be suspended its development due to some factors, for example, fund, etc. This is adverse to re-development of the drugs applicable for new indications. The projects that cannot be finished by the company internally can be completed by raising money and by relying on the CRO’s platform and policy support. In addition, currently, the sharing of the pharmaceutical mechanism information and the clinical pharmacovigilance information among enterprises is also conservative. It is very helpful to further share the results of the drug repositioning in progress.


Whether Are the New Purposes of the Drugs the Patentable Object?

Whether are the drugs with new purposes patentable? The answer is definitely YES. This can be filed an application for new indications (new purposes). Of course, whether it is approved is subject to investigation of its three features. Novelty mainly focuses on whether such new purpose is substantially disclosed. The Chinese Review Guidance for Patent points out, “for the invention of medical purpose relating to the chemical products, their novelty review shall consider the following aspects:

(1) Whether is the new purpose materially different from the known purpose? Novelty is not established if the representations are different only but they are identical in nature.

(2) Whether is the new purpose directly revealed by the known functioning mechanism and pharmacological function? Novelty is not established if they are directly identical to the original functioning mechanism or pharmacological function.  

(3) Whether is the new purpose belonging to the superordinate concept of the known purpose? The known subordinate purpose may damage the novelty of the superordinate concept.

(4) Whether are the features relating to the use of the drugs like drug-administrated object, administration method, way, dosage and time interval, etc. limiting the pharmaceutical process? Novelty is not established if it is reflected in the distinguishing features in the drug administration process.”

Creativity mainly investigates whether such purpose has sufficient scientific supports (like pre-clinical and clinical data). The utilization is used to prevent the trap of “diagnosis and treatment methods of diseases”.

As for the patent protection of such kind of drug, the original R&D companies have two solutions available, i.e. (1) applying for extending the protection period of the known compound patent of such kind of drug, or (2) applying for the new patent for such kind of drug. In practice, many pharmaceutical companies tend to adopt the second one, i.e. applying for the new patent for such kind of drug. Such strategy maximizes the life circle of the drug and enlarges the patent protection scope; however, this is also limited by the patent law and review practice.

In the USA, although the compound may be not patent protected, such compound is used for new indications, i.e. new purposes of known drugs (or the second indication). If it is determined to be new or unexpected, it is generally patent protected. In the USA patent application practice, the scope of claims of the new purpose patents that can be approved is wide, even including some restrictions like scope of patients, for example, the factors affecting the treatment effects such as gender, race or age, etc. The patent offices in many countries hold that the patent of the second indication extends improperly the protection of the drugs without new drugs, therefore, such claim is rejected for patent rights.


Under specific circumstances, the new purposes/new indications of the drug compound are the objects that are patent protected, but the patent approval is subject to the challenges in respect of novelty and creativity. This requires the pharmaceutical enterprises to note the requirements of the patent law and review practices during their R&D process. Under the tendency of production and market internationalization, the international applications for drug patents have been already the Must-Do strategic need. Formulating different patent application strategies by using the different provisions on the claims of the new purposes of the compound in different countries is the required contents for the high-level patent services. The new purpose of a known drug subject to patent protection may have a large profit return. Therefore, once the pharmaceutical enterprises find the new indications of the known drug, even if the patent rights of such compound is not owned, it is also required to file the international application for the patent of new purposes of such drugs, and determine the claim form and scope of the country application according to the different provisions of these countries.  







2021年度专利复审无效十大案件 专利复审和无效审理是对专利权利的保护范围大小甚至权利的有无进行再次认定的程序,决定着专利权的保护基础,一直备受社会关注。4月26日,2021年度专利复审无效十大案件在国家知识产权局开放日活动中正式发布。 案例1.“新颖的磺酰胺类化合物及其作为内皮素受体拮抗剂的应用”发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL01820481.3) 案情简介:专利权人:埃科特莱茵药品有限公司,无效宣告请求人:南京正大天睛制药有限公司。本案涉及的药品马昔腾坦,是首个获批用于治疗肺动脉高压的口服制剂。本案系仿制药申请人在提交仿制药申请后,针对原研药发起的专利挑战。案件审理过程中涉及化学医药领域的多个法律问题,包括权利要求中技术术语的理解、马库什权利要求的性质、马库什化合物和具体化合物优先权的认定、表格化合物充分公开的判断、补充实验数据以及化合物创造性的判断等。 审理结论:在修改的基础上维持有效。 典型意义:本案是药物化合物审理的典型案例,对于优先权的认定、表格化合物充分公开的判断以及化合物创造性的判断具有示范作用。 案例2.“被取代的多环性氨基甲酰基吡啶酮衍生物的前药”发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL201180056716.8) 案情简介:专利权人:盐野义制药株式会社,无效宣告请求人:刘奕彤。本案涉及的玛巴洛沙韦是目前获批的首个、也是唯一一个单剂量口服抗流感药物。案件审理过程中涉及马库什权利要求能否获得说明书的支持,如何准确评价说明书对技术效果的公开以及结构类似的化合物的创造性判断等法律问题。 审理结论:维持有效 典型意义:本案对于准确评价说明书描述的技术效果以及马库什权利要求能否得到说明书支持具有借鉴意义;还阐述了对于“结构类似但用途不同的化合物”,在创造性评判时应当对现有技术提供的机理研究成果进行全面考察,如果其与涉案专利的作用机制缺乏内在联系,则不能从中获得对化合物结构改进以实现不同用途的技术启示。 案例3.“通过图像采集获取网络连接的数据传输方式及其系统”的发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL201010523284.4) 案情简介:专利权人为上海科斗电子科技有限公司,无效宣告请求人为掌阅科技股份有限公司。在本案的无效宣告程序中,双方均提交了大量证据,案件复杂度高,口头审理后,请求人提出了撤案声明。本案审理的重点在于当请求人提出了撤案请求时,审理程序是否终止,即对专利法实施细则第七十二条第2款规定的理解和适用。 审理结论:宣告无效 典型意义:本案对于当事人撤回其请求但审理程序可以不终止的法律规定进行诠释,合理平衡专利权人与社会公众的利益。 案例4.“左心耳封堵器”的发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL201310567987.0) 案情简介:专利权人:先健科技(深圳)有限公司,无效宣告请求人:蔡景莉。本案请求人对专利权人的多个专利权提起了无效宣告请求,本案是其中一件。本案审理中,请求人主张涉案专利缺乏新颖性和创造性,并提交相关现有技术证据。专利权人则主张请求人提出的主要证据属于在申请日以前六个月内“他人未经申请人同意而泄露其内容的”情形,因而涉案专利应享有“新颖性宽限期”,请求人提交的证据不能破坏其新颖性和创造性。 审理结论:宣告无效 典型意义:本案对于“新颖性宽限期”的适用进行诠释,充分论述了对“他人未经申请人同意而泄露其内容”能否享受现有技术豁免的认定思路,明确对于他人未经同意而泄露发明创造内容的情形,如果证据能够表明专利权人在已经知晓情况后两个月内仍未提出声明和提交证明文件,则不能享有新颖性的宽限期。决定强调,专利权人在知晓他人未经同意而泄露技术内容时,应及时履行必要的声明义务。 案例5.“轴流风轮”的发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL200710026747.4) 案情简介:专利权人:广东美的制冷设备有限公司,无效宣告请求人:珠海格力电器股份有限公司。美的、格力、奥克斯是国内空调行业的三大竞争巨头,他们之间的专利纷争不断,本案为格力对美的提出的第二次无效宣告请求,案件所涉及的用于空调外机上的轴流风轮对空调效能具有重要影响,是三家企业专利大战的关键专利之一。 审理结论:宣告无效 典型意义:本案涉及单方委托鉴定报告证据效力的认定,同时,对采用参数定义的产品权利要求与使用公开证据的技术比对提供了审理思路。   案例6.“图像传感器CS3825C”的集成电路布图设计专有权撤销案(登记号:BS.175539928) 案情简介:专利权人:珠海市矽旺半导体有限公司,撤销意见提出人:深圳市芯智锐光电科技有限公司。本案审理涉及多个撤销条款,包括有关保护客体的条例第二条,有关独创性的条例第四条,有关申请登记期限的条例第七条。 审理结论:维持有效 典型意义:本案诠释了专有权保护对象、独创性审理范围以及申请登记期限的判断规则,对布图设计案件的审理具有借鉴意义。 案例7.“仪表机壳”的外观设计专利无效案(专利号:ZL201030122941.5) 案情简介:专利权人:福建顺昌虹润精密仪器有限公司,无效宣告请求人:厦门希科自动化科技有限公司。本案审理过程中涉及多个争议焦点,包括“中间产品”是否属于外观设计保护的客体、判断主体的确定,以及外观设计的对比判断规则。 审理结论:宣告无效 典型意义:本案阐明了作为判断主体的“一般消费者”应当具有的知识水平和认知能力,分析了各设计特征对于整体视觉效果的不同影响权重。 案例8.“防爆装置”的实用新型专利无效案(专利号:ZL201521112402.7) 案情简介:专利权人:宁德时代新能源科技股份有限公司,无效宣告请求人:江苏塔菲尔新能源科技股份有限公司、东莞塔菲尔新能源科技有限公司。本案审理过程中主要争议焦点在于两个方面,一是对技术方案的理解,二是作为技术改进点的多个结构特征对创造性判断的影响。 审理结论:在修改的基础上维持有效。 典型意义:本案是新能源领域结构类产品创造性判断的典型案例,决定强调,判断是否存在技术启示时,应对区别特征之间的关系予以关注,在准确认定涉案专利实际要解决的技术问题和能够达到的技术效果的基础上,客观判断现有技术是否给出了相应的技术启示。 案例9.“用于治疗潜伏性结核的喹啉衍生物” “取代的喹啉衍生物在治疗耐药性分枝杆菌性疾病中的用途”的发明专利无效案(专利号:ZL201210507318.X、ZL200580017016.2) 案情简介:专利权人:詹森药业有限公司,无效宣告请求人:王立群。本系列案涉及两项专利权,该两项专利涉及全球45年来首个抗结核药物“贝达喹啉”。本系列案审理过程中涉及多个争议焦点,包括对权利要求特定技术术语的理解、如何考量说明书实验数据,以及对医药用途发明改进动机与合理成功预期的判断等。 审理结论:在修改的基础上维持有效。 典型意义:本案明确了在医药用途发明的创造性判断中,应当准确评价是否存在“合理的成功预期”。 案例10.“一种用于给排水的活接接头”的实用新型专利无效案(专利号:ZL201920390483.9) 案情简介:专利权人:浙江天雁控股有限公司,无效宣告请求人:孟祥麟。本案审理过程中涉及举证责任、对电子证据真实性的确定、使用公开证据链的认定,以及实用性的判断等诸多法律问题。 审理结论:维持有效。 典型意义:本案明晰了在核实证据优先权时,本国优先权文件的举证责任分配和获取途径。同时,本案还诠释了对实用性意义上“能够产生积极效果”的理解,以及对微信聊天记录、展会等不同类型证据真实性和证明力的认定规则。      

The 2021 patent index targets current patent statistics and trends in Europe

The EPO acts as executive body for the European Patent Organization, an intergovernmental organization that was set up on 7 October 1977 on the basis of the European Patent Convention, to “strengthen co-operation between the States of Europe in respect of the protection of inventions” and establish a single procedure for the grant of patents abiding by certain standard rules.

Chile is the first country to pass neurorights law

On October 25th, 2021, the Senate of the Republic of Chile unanimously approved a bill to amend the constitution to protect brain rights or “neurorights”. Chile became the first nation to have a constitution in force that explicitly addresses the challenges of emerging neurotechnologies. 





备案号:苏ICP备xxxxxx号-1    网站建设:中企动力 南京