Are you Pat-Informed?  A new joint initiative of the research-based biopharmaceutical industry and WIPO wants you to be.

Guest post by Corey Salsberg, Vice President, Global Head IP Affairs, Novartis

The patent system depends on information to achieve its goal of promoting progress.  Published information defines the prior art.  Patents must disclose sufficient information to describe an invention and enable others to practice it.  And applications containing this information are published after 18 months, even if no patent issues.  Comparing patents to other intellectual property rights that also promote innovation—trade secrets, most notably—the system’s role in disseminating information is one of its most distinguishing features.

But “information is not knowledge,” as Einstein (and Frank Zappa) said.  Information isn’t anything if it isn’t accessible.  And it isn’t much use if those who can access it lack the ability or means to organize, process, and apply it to their work.

In the field of biopharmaceuticals, patent information is important to a wide variety of stakeholders.  Innovators use it to assess the state of the art, to secure freedom-to-operate, to seek out opportunities for in- or out-licensing, to identify partners for collaboration, or to learn from, improve, or advance the field of medicine.  Generics use it to plan product development, to design-around patents, craft strategies for patent challenges, and to help inform when and where they can proceed with generic product launches.  Both of these groups generally have access to patent lawyers and other professionals, and to private services that can “landscape” patents better than Bierstadt or Frederic Church.  But when it comes to something as important as patented medicines, there are other stakeholders that lack these resources, but who nevertheless would benefit from effective access to basic patent information.  These include health authorities, multilaterals, and a variety of NGOs engaged in the procurement of medicines, who need access to patent information to inform their decisions about how, when, where and from whom to obtain life-saving products for their constituents.  To be sure, granted patents, pending applications (at 18 months), and the information they contain are all public materials that are widely available through national patent offices, international organizations, and public search engines like Google Patents.  But accessing this information and processing it in a way that connects it to medicines can be challenging, burdensome, or for some even daunting.

To help take up this challenge, over the last couple of years the research-based pharmaceutical industry has been hard at work developing an industry-based platform that aims to make it easier for global drug procurement agencies to access a basic body of patent information that connects issued patents to marketed medicines.  Now under the joint sponsorship of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), the platform, known as the Patent Information Initiative for Medicines, or “Pat-INFORMED,” is a voluntary endeavor comprised of a public database of patent information, and a platform for facilitating communication between procurement agencies and patent owners.  The database portion of Pat-INFORMED, hosted by WIPO, is modelled on the US “Orange Book,” and will provide the public with a searchable online gateway that, on a global basis, correlates granted patents to a company’s marketed medicines.  Information for the database will be supplied directly by participating companies like Novartis, and will be updated on a periodic basis.  Meanwhile, the communication platform will provide a channel for follow-on inquiries, to make it easier for procurement agencies to seek more detailed public patent information about a particular medicine.

To date, twenty leading global research-based biopharmaceutical companies, including founders Novartis, GSK, Pfizer and Merck KGaA, have committed to participate, and we anticipate more.  The initiative was formally announced last week at the WIPO General Assembly in Geneva, and is expected to be operational by mid-2018, with an initial wave of data for all small molecule medicines in the areas of oncology; hepatitis C, cardiovascular, HIV, diabetes, and respiratory disease, as well as any other products on the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines List.  In a second phase, Pat-INFORMED will expand to all therapeutic areas and explore the inclusion of complex therapeutics.

As a founding member, we at Novartis view Pat-INFORMED as a great illustration of what can be accomplished when the private sector and multilateral organizations work together to improve the status quo and craft solutions to society’s challenges.

= = = = =

Notes

 

32 thoughts on “Are you Pat-Informed?  A new joint initiative of the research-based biopharmaceutical industry and WIPO wants you to be.

  1. “Constitution puts a limit on patent law.
    First Amendment is in the Constitution.
    Therefore First Amendment puts a limit on patent law.”

    “anon”: That is abysmal logic.

    Bask in the deep serious workings of the glibertarian mind!

    LOL

      1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        October 14, 2017 at 7:59 am
        Pardon Potential (re)Post due to the as 1n1ne count filter:

        Your comment is awaiting moderation.
        October 14, 2017 at 7:57 am
        Malcolm’s “logic” here is a “2+2=whatever” “anything in the Constitution affects everything else” type of bra1n less ness.

        If you ever go back to law school and tried that on an exam you would surely F A 1 L.

        That he is compelled to engage in his “look at me look at me” posting at the top of the thread with his “whatever” logic just shows how w@rped he is.

  2. I thought the whole point of the current biosimilar laws was to avoid having to put your crown jewel patents into the public spotlight through an orange book for biologics. Maybe the public relation people and the litigation people are not talking to each other.

  3. Mango Hairball: “It’s frankly disgusting that the press is able to write whatever they want to write.”

    LOL Freederm! Smell it.

    But Hillary gave speeches to some banks so they’re all the same. That’s why “anon” cast a “protest vote” for Bernie. Very serious stuff!

    Glibertarians are the worst hypocrites on the planet. And there’s a surplus in the patent bar, especially on the s0f tie w0ftie side. Anyone want to know why? Just ask. But it’s not too hard to figure it out yourself.

      1. Remember, folks: “anon” is the same guy who spent years here (1) trying to squelch any discussion of how patents can be used to protect information (e.g., correlations) and (2) has been very a-scared to admit that the First Amendment applies as a limit on patent rights.

        But he’s all about freederm! A deep and serious abider. Sure he is. As long as he gets more patents, all the time, on everything, and they are easier to monetize and more difficult to take away.

        LOL

        Now watch him spin like a top. It’s what glibertarians do. And like I said: there are a lot of spinners in the patent bar. Anyone wonder why? I don’t.

        1. Your spin is noted.

          However, the truth of the matter is that I never aimed to squelch ANY discussion on the merits of ANY legal point.

          Now squelching dissembling…. THAT’s quite a different matter.

          As for “spin” – the Accuse Others meme of yours remains in top gear.

          1. I never aimed to squelch ANY discussion on the merits

            Oh right. You just created a little army of hundreds of s 0 ckpuppets because your views on [oldstep]+[newthought] claims were so compelling and serious.

            Sure. Got it.

            LOL

            Seriously, “anon”, we’re not all like you. Most of us can see right through your cr @p.

            Try to believe it, folks.

            1. because your views on [oldstep]+[newthought] claims were so compelling and serious.

              Too funny. Especially when your were the one that constantly ran away from discussions when I presented counter points to your pet theory.

              Grilling you on your insipid theory and showing the weaknesses thereof is NOT squelching conversation.

              THAT you could not respond to the counter points is evidence that what was being squelched was dissembling.

              That’s how the presentation of counterpoints works.

              You might want to pay attention to that.

                1. The statement that a claim in the form [oldstep]+[newthought] turns people who are practicing the prior art into infringers when they think the “new thought” about their data is most definitely a 2+2=4 kind of statement.

                  And that’s what drove you and Kevin Noonan and a lot of other know-n0things around the bend. And it still does.

                  And it will continue to do so because I will never, ever stop shoving it in your faces.

                2. It most definitely is NOT, Malcolm.

                  And it past (attempts) at conversations with you, I provided counter points showing exactly why.

                  You ran away and “squelched” yourself.

                  The “drive around the bend” comment is nothing more than the usual Accuse Others meme.

                  It is far less important the “shove in our faces” and far more important that you actually engage with the counter points presented to you rather than use your typical internet-style shout down of repeating banalities as if those counter points were never presented.

                  You still seem to have difficulty with the concept that your schtick has critiques….

                3. engage with the counter points

                  2+2=5 is not a “counterpoint”, “anon.”

                  Shall we go back and revisit the Lifetech threads where you likewise face planted yourself with your pants down, screeching this “respong to my counterpoints” silliness the entire time?

                  You’re a j o k e.

        2. has been very a-scared to admit that the First Amendment applies as a limit on patent rights

          My asking you to substantiate your claims as to First Amendment “application” to (as a limit on) patent rights flies directly opposite your attempted spin of me “trying to squelch any discussion.”

          Why is it that you feel the need to make unsubstantiated statements, then run away when called upon to actually substantiate those statements and then Accuse Others with more statements of utter nonsense?

          Try to believe it, folks.

          Indeed – just not how you want to spin it Malcolm.

          1. My asking you to substantiate your claims

            Constitution puts a limit on patent law.
            First Amendment is in the Constitution.
            Therefore First Amendment puts a limit on patent law.

            This is pretty simple stuff and it was explained to you before.

            Now go ahead and spin somewhere. Wheee!!!! Dennis loves watching you do that almost as much as he loves watching you spew out an endless stream of falsehoods. Yummy!

            1. Constitution puts a limit on patent law.
              First Amendment is in the Constitution.
              Therefore First Amendment puts a limit on patent law.

              That is abysmal logic.

              Try for something (anything) that is actually meaningful.

    1. “It’s frankly disgusting that the press is able to write whatever they want to write.””

      Actually true in this day and age. Once upon a time the freedom of the press was used agin tyranny, and today it is effectively a tyranny all its own. Effectively it has spawned a propaganda outlet of the leftist subversive movement. Though it admittedly still does have and somewhat provide many of the traditional benefits of freedom of the press along with that new fangled tyranny.

      But if you want something newsworthy genuinely of note for patent lawlyers, check out what lawlyers in canadia land will be having to do soon by official decree. Apparently they have to sign and swear their allegiance to leftism’s “muh diversity and inclusions” (effectively modern leftism outright), and have such signed and sworn allegiance to the same accepted by a regulatory body in order to continue practicing lawl. More will be out soon on that topic.

      This measure of course is being taken because the lawlyers in canadia land are notoriously raycist. Meanwhile canadia’s supreme court has apparently ruled on exactly this issue being illegal, yet never the less the canucks in the regulatory body are barreling forwards.

          1. Don’t be too upset about a leftist’s leftist slanders anon. Those in attendance know what he’s up to by now. He probably doesn’t think that the dept of diversity and inclusion would have much to do with his muh leftism. But of course they set up kangaroo courts in the US (and some other countries) already.

            link to youtube.com

            1. Those in attendance know what he’s up to by now.

              Absolutely.

              Which makes the calls for a “better ec(h)osystem” all the more funny when Malcolm’s ability to post 15 times (at least) on one thread contrasts against lower limits for those that actually engage on the merits in conversations with multiple people.

              He is not the only person “up to something.”

        1. “Dennis, he’s your little r@ cist.”

          Says MM who just now told us he’s a raycyst just the other day.

          Lololololol tell us more about how amazing you are at “pointing out the raycysm of whitey/republikkkians”!

            1. Oh I will brosefulous, but don’t keep us in the dark as to your lefty reasoning as to how xyz that you point out is “raycyst”. Give us the full treatment. If the subject is islam, tell us all about “orientalism” and how that’s the basis for all critique of islam today, and it’s fundamentally raycyst. If the subject is immigration tell us all about whatever wackadoodle theory underlies your premise.

              And above all, be sure to give us a primer on post-modernism, the wellspring from which all your “pointings out” spring. Just so that we can all follow along.

              Tell us about how a bunch of classic book scholars were sitting around trying to come up with the definitive way to interpret shakesphere etc. and accidontally discovered that there was no one true way to interpretate upon any of the old classics and that they were all in fact engaging in a massive power play as academics to have their own personal view on xyz work to be the “authoritative interpretation”. Tell us how this paved the way for the hur dur leftist theory that every interpretation of “everything” (enlarged from the context of those mere critiques of classic literary works) or anything was thus also just a big power play on the part of the people doing the interpretatin’. (you can leave out the part about how this nonsense leaves out a small thing called reality at this point). Then tell us how this then led to yet another leftist theory seeing all cultures as being only subjectively good or bad, or better or worse.

              Tell us then about how with the above theorizing in hand whitey’s histories are just one group trying to make a power play over all other groups. Tell us then how all this leads the determination that all white people are raycyst and everything the republikkkans do is raycyst (although the white dems get a pass because of their lapel pin). Oh and everyone being a white supr emacist.

              Be sure to hold our hands through it, we’re not as smart as a raycyst like yourself that completed a workshop on how to treat their own raycysm.

  4. It’s too bad the s0 fti e w0 ftie community can’t come up with something similar with respect to their algorithms.

    I agree (quite aside from the snideness, of course). Then again, the software community is not controlled by MEGA-rich transnationals that have captured the patent processes…

    Is that the “other reason” that you insinuate? 😉

    As to the article itself,…

    Information isn’t anything if it isn’t accessible. And it isn’t much use if those who can access it lack the ability or means to organize, process, and apply it to their work.

    I would add that there are those (in the Infringer Rights camp) that actively forbid its workers from even looking at that information. Not only is this the opposite of lack of ability or means, it is the forbidding of using the already well known (and quite easy) ability and means.

    By the way, if you lack the ability or means to reach into patent publications (GIVEN such public means already amply exist), how much more hand-holding are you going to need?

    1. I’ll just repeat this (although obvious from what you just wrote): the patent maximalists who believe that logic and information should be protected with patents are woefully behind the curve in comparison to the grown-ups in the chem/bio community.

      There’s a reason for that and it’s not flattering. “anon” and people like him are a big part of the failure. It’s a culture of entitlement, childish whining, and an inability (based in a combination of low intelligence and a willingness to remain ignorant) to address issues meaningful.

      Go ahead and stamp your feet some more, “anon.” We’re all impressed.

      As for this: the Infringer Rights camp

      There is no such thing. And the fact that you pretend otherwise while spouting glibertarian talking points out of the other side of your mouth is frankly disgusting.

      We can all see what you’re doing. Just stop it.

  5. It’s too bad the s0 fti e w0 ftie community can’t come up with something similar with respect to their algorithms.

    Obviously the difference is that the chem/bio field has money but everyone knows there’s no money in computing.

    Or maybe there’s some other reason.

Comments are closed.