"This accusation is predicated on I-MAK's assertion that these companies own large numbers of patents covering their respective products. But, as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) noted in its recent Drug Patent and Exclusivity Study, 'simply quantifying raw numbers of patents and exclusivities is an imprecise way to measure the intellectual property landscape of a drug product because not every patent or exclusivity has the same scope.'"
"Moreover, I-MAK's assessment of the numbers of patents relevant to those products is itself misleading, because the analysis uses unreasonably broad search terms without limitation to the part of the patent that spells out the rights of the patent holder (i.e., the claims). For many of its search terms, I-MAK searched across the entire text of the patent, including the specification, without further analysis of whether the claims of the patent were relevant to the products at issue."
I-MAK's April 2025 report claims Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly engaged in patent abuse to extend protection for semaglutide and tirzepatide products. The USPTO cautions that raw patent counts are an imprecise measure because patents and exclusivities differ in scope. I-MAK used unreasonably broad search terms and searched entire patent texts rather than focusing on claims that define enforceable rights. That approach identified patents that do not claim the products and would not block generic competition. After publication, I-MAK maintained its methodology instead of narrowing searches to patents' claim scope.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]