‘Mapping the European Patent Landscape for Medical Uses of Known Products’, co-authored by Prof. Mateo Aboy, Prof. Kathy Liddell, Dr John Liddicoat, Dr Cristina Crespo, and Matt Jordan, uses EPO data to examine the European patent landscape of first and further medical uses of known products. Specifically, the paper addresses three research questions:
What activity has there been in the EPO for medical uses of known products over the last 30 years? How many patents are granted per year? What is their allowance rate?
Which organisations are leading the patent activity for medical uses of known products?
What types of claim formulations are being used to protect these inventions and what is their relative prevalence?
Most countries active in pharmaceutical innovation offer patent protection and market exclusivity for new medical uses of known products. However, the question of whether such policies offer sustainable business models is an active debate within the field of pharmaceutical research known as ‘repurposing’. Commentators argue that the patent system offers insufficient incentives for repurposing, but these claims remain empirically untested. This research helps fill the gap.
The paper is a featured patent article in the journal’s November 2021 issue. Previous papers from this group published in Nature Biotechnology include:
‘One year after Vanda, are diagnostics patents transforming into methods of treatment to overcome Mayo-based rejections?’ (2019), which examined the effect of the decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd. on patent prosecution practice.
‘How does emerging patent case law in the US and Europe affect precision medicine?’ (2019), which examined the impact of US and European patent case law on patents for (i) biomarkers and nature-based product claims; (ii) method of diagnosis claims and (iii) algorithms, big data and artificial intelligence.
'Mayo’s impact on patent applications related to biotech, diagnostics, and personalized medicine' (2019), which examined the impact of the US Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. on patent subject-matter eligibility and patent prosecution of biotech related patent applications before the USPTO.
'Was the Myriad decision a 'surgical strike' on isolated DNA patents, or does it have wider impacts?' (2018), an empirical investigation into the effects of the US Supreme Court's decision in Myriad on patent prosecution for nature-based products beyond isolated DNA;
'After Myriad, what makes a gene patent claim 'markedly different' from nature?' (2017), which identified the types of claim amendments that successfully transformed isolated gene claims from ineligible subject matter into patent eligible inventions; and
'Myriad's impact on gene patents' (2016), which was a post-Myriad empirical patent landscape analysis.
Empirical studies continue to be a core focus of LML research, and feature significantly in LML's contribution to the CeBIL research programme. Timo Minssen (University of Copengahen), CeBIL's Principal Investigator, shared his enthusiasm for this paper on LinkedIn, writing:
Interested in ”the European patent landscape for medical uses of known products"? Then check-out this exciting paper involving several of our wonderful CeBIL partners from LML at the University of Cambridge ! Many congrats to Mateo Aboy, PhD, SJD, FIT, Dr Kathy Liddell, John Liddicoat , Cristina Crespo & Matthew Jordan!"