Comment by chdir | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chdir | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The article explains it better instead of simply saying it's not innovative. It's worth reading these 2 paragraphs:

"India believes that the patent standards are so low that companies can get patents for inventions very easily," Amin said in an interview. The patent office's examiner ruled Gilead's patent claim "lacks novelty and inventive step," as Bloomberg News noted, and also doesn't demonstrate it's significantly more effective than already known compounds. Amin explains that the controller general's decision holds that "there are a number of earlier compound structures that are very close to what Gilead is trying to get a patent for."

But Sovaldi is a breakthrough drug. Shouldn't that be worth something? "It's important to recognize that what the patent office deals with is whether something is new in science," Amin said. "The decision says there are a number of earlier compound structures that are very close to what Gilead is trying to get a patent for. It's a scientific decision and has nothing to do with the utility of the drug." Gilead didn't offer comment on Wednesday.

This is what I think is the vital issue. Taking a known compound and searching for every possible form in order to find one that doesn't happen to have been documented is in fact something that is "obvious to one skilled in the art," because it's a widespread activity. There are specific rules in the US patent system surrounding this issue.

So it's not like the drug maker was necessarily whacked by some rogue judge issuing a weird decision out of the blue. It may very well be that Gilead was taking a known risk at the hands of the Indian patent system.

Does Sovaldi satisfy India's standards for novelty? I don't know. I've had a patent application struck down over novelty, so I know it's not a happy day when it happens.

> Taking a known compound and searching for every possible form in order to find one that doesn't happen to have been documented is in fact something that is "obvious to one skilled in the art," because it's a widespread activity.

But it is not the activity (which describes, essentially, most research) being patented, it is the result of that activity. If the search space is very large, that is actually an indication of the non-obviousness of a solution that works in practice. Drug discovery certainly meets that criteria.

Yes, you're quite right. As I understand it, drug discovery has special rules. The search space is large but not infinite. It involves the original drug compound in different "forms" such as crystal structures, particle sizes, counter-ion (whatever thingy attaches to the molecule and makes it soluble, etc.). The chemical effect of the drug in the body is the same, i.e., it bonds with the same receptor molecule in some cell somewhere. But changing those things can have a pharmacological effect such as the speed with which the drug is taken into the body, thus it is a different drug within the context of US and I believe European patent law, but I can't talk about India.

This could be a case of a bad decision in India, of course, but it also could be one where the patent examiners in US and Europe were more lenient than they should of been.

(Disclaimer: I helped work on equipment designed to assist in this kind of chemical searching).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com