China wants to patent Gilead’s experimental coronavirus drug
Chinese researchers have applied for a local patent on an experimental Gilead Sciences Inc drug that they believe might fight the novel coronavirus outbreak.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology -- based in the central Chinese city at the epicentRE of the epidemic -- has applied for a patent in China for the use of the antiviral drug, know as remdesivir, in treating the ailment.
The application was made on Jan 21 along with a military academy, according to a Feb 4 statement on the institute’s website.
The move is a sign that China wants more intellectual property sway over a drug it deems one of the most promising candidates.
Beijing has moved aggressively to contain the infection that has killed almost 500 people and infected nearly 25,000. If this patent is granted, Gilead will need to get Chinese patent owners on board when it wants to sell the drug for treating the novel coronavirus infection outside China.
"The good thing in having a patent is that it would lead to cross-licensing situations that give China more bargaining chips in negotiating the licensing fee with Gilead, ” said Wang Yanyu, a senior partner at AllBright Law Offices in Beijing.
"When Gilead wants to sell the drug to other countries for fighting new coronavirus, it will have to negotiate with China as the country which owns the patent for that specific purpose.”
It is not clear if or when China’s intellectual property authorities will approve the institute’s application. The patent filing will need to prove that the drug works on this coronavirus strain, 2019-nCoV, in a way that’s different from how it works on other viruses in the same category.
Filing of the patent application by a stakeholder in China, however, makes sense, according to Wang.
"Most of the patients are here, rather than in the US which makes it unlikely that Gilead will do all these tests, ” he said.
While Gilead’s experimental drug isn’t licensed or approved anywhere in the world, it is being rushed into human trials in China on coronavirus patients after showing early signs of being highly effective.
It may go into clinical trials in China as early as next week in patients with moderate and severe symptoms of the novel pathogen, said Merdad Parsey, Gilead’s chief medical officer.
Chinese scientists have found Gilead’s remdesivir, and chloroquine, an 80-year-old malaria drug,"highly effective” in laboratory studies at thwarting the novel coronavirus, they said Tuesday in a paper in the journal Cell Research.
The two drugs’ efficacy on humans required further clinical tests, the institute said in the statement.
China is capable of manufacturing chloroquine and now wants access to remdesivir.
The decision, however, to seek a patent instead of invoking the heavy-handed "compulsory licence” option that lets nations override drug patents in national emergencies, underscores the delicate balancing act before China as it signals commitment toward intellectual property rights alongside curbing the virus outbreak.
"The fact that they have applied for a patent means there’s growing awareness about this in the country, ” said Wang.
"The government is compelled to avoid using the compulsory licence because it has been making efforts to show China respects intellectual property rights and the abuse of compulsory licensing will draw international criticism.”
Gilead will retain the global rights to market the antiviral medication -- once approved -- for treating other illnesses such as Ebola and Sars that the drug was originally aimed for.
The Wuhan institute said in its statement that it made the patent application out of national interest, and won’t exercise its patent rights if foreign pharmaceutical firms work together with China to curb the contagion.
At its end, Gilead is shipping enough doses to treat 500 patients and is ramping up supply in case the clinical trials work.
While the drug is challenging to produce, Gilead is working as fast as possible to produce more, according to Parsey.
Source: thestar
India Approves Creating MoU on Intellectual Property Rights with U.S.
Days ahead of President Donald Trump’s visit to India Feb. 24 and 25, India’s Union Cabinet has approved a plan to sign an initial pact on intellectual property rights with the U.S., according to Reuters.
Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar said Feb. 19 that the cabinet approved creating an MoU with the U.S. during a meeting presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The U.S., said Reuters, has long urged India to strengthen protection for intellectual property and that has been a cause of friction on top of trade disputes between the two countries.
India announced its first National Intellectual Property Rights Policy in May 2016, saying that with this document, “India aims to place before the world a vibrant and predictable IP regime, which stimulates creativity and innovation across sectors, as also facilitates a stable, transparent and service-oriented IPR administration in the country.”
In 2019, the United States Trade Representative office for IP violations placed India on a ‘Priority Watch List,’ saying while India has taken steps to address intellectual property challenges and promote IP protection and enforcement, “many of the actions have not yet translated into concrete benefits for innovators and creators, and long-standing deficiencies persist. India remains one of the world’s most challenging major economies with respect to protection and enforcement of IP.”
Source: indiawest
Apple Moves to Dismiss Copyright Suit Against AppleTV+ Show
Defendant Apple, joined by production studios and staff, has filed a motion to dismiss a copyright lawsuit filed by Francesca Gregorini, a film director who alleged that the AppleTV+ series Servant infringed upon her copyright in her film The Truth About Emmanuel. The defendants argued that Servant is not “substantially similar” to Gregorini’s film.
The motion argued that to assess the similarity of two works, judges must not consider content or elements which are not protected by copyright. The defendants added, “Accordingly, courts filter out so-called scenes a faire, or elements that flow naturally from a basic premise.” After “filtering out” unprotected elements, the defendants argue that a judge must compare “specific expressive elements” of the two works.
“Importantly, courts repeatedly find that lists of ‘random similarities scattered throughout the works’ are insufficient to satisfy the extrinsic test because they are ‘inherently subjective and unreliable.’”
The motion then analyzed the similarities presented in the original complaint. The defendants argued that elements in both works, such as “featuring a new mother, including having help with the baby,” ” a grieving mother using a reborn doll to cope with losing a child,” and “the concept of parents treating a doll as their child” all are unprotectable as the aforementioned scenes a faire. They added that visual similarities between the works are “ubiquitous elements from film and television” and are thus also unprotectable.
Finally, the defendants stated that plot similarities are “mischaracterizations of one or both of the works at issue.” The motion went on to explain that the works are dissimilar in theme, structure, mood, pacing, setting, and characterisation, adding that “As Plaintiff alleges, Emmanuel is an “emotional story about motherhood and daughter-hood…Servant”s primary theme is very different and much darker.” While the characters find “peace” in Gregorini’s work, they do not in Servant, the motion purported.
“Once unprotectable elements are disregarded, the works’ plot, sequence of events, themes, characters, setting, mood, pace, and dialogue are different, and Plaintiff’s cherry-picking of unprotectable elements or generic details does not enable her to survive dismissal.”
The defendants are represented by Davis Wright Tremaine. Gregorini is represented by Erikson Law Group.
Source: lawstreetmedia
Chorus wins court costs after ‘grossly misleading flattery’ case
A telecommunication giant that used "grossly misleading flattery" in a bid to secure a broadband contract with a council has won back court costs.
Chorus sought costs from Creative Development Solutions, which it strung along last year to try and win a deal with the Marlborough District Council to roll out broadband in the Marlborough Sounds.
Creative last year claimed at the High Court, in Wellington, that Chorus breached a non-disclosure agreement by making use of its "confidential information" in a bid for the government's rural broadband initiative.
Justice Dobson dismissed the proceeding in November after finding Creative's information was not of value to Chorus and ordered each party to cover their own costs. But Chorus asked him to "reconsider" a month later, as it tried to settle the dispute before it reached court.
On 12 June, Chorus offered $750,000 if a settlement was reached by 28 June, a day before it was due to submit evidence briefs. It also offered $500,000 if a settlement was reached after 28 June but by 2 August.
Chorus filed papers claiming compensation from the June deadline for Creative's failure to accept their offer, plus "increased costs", as their offer was rejected "without reasonable justification".
But Creative solicitor Michael Wigley said in a response earlier this month that the offer was not enough to overcome the "unusual circumstances".
Last year, Justice Dobson said in his judgement that Chorus used a "misleading, flattering tone of approval" to hide a "negative" view of Creative's intellectual property, in what was a "most unusual dynamic".
The flattery began when Chorus, Creative and the council came together to submit to a Crown Infrastructure Partners initiative in February 2018.
Creative asked Chorus for help after the council's previous submission to the initiative, which it helped develop, was unsuccessful.
But it later discovered Chorus was attempting to bid on its own for the government initiative using what Creative thought was their "confidential information".
Wigley said the circumstances were enough to negate the costs claim.
But Justice Dobson disagreed in a judgement last week, and awarded Chorus half its legal costs and half its disbursement costs from 28 June.
He said despite Creative's "annoyance at the misleading flattery Chorus had subjected it to", their offer was enough to support a claim for costs.
"Acceptance of either offer would have produced a substantially better outcome for [Creative] than has resulted from my substantive judgement."
Creative's communications director Brendon Burns said on Thursday he was unsure how much Creative owed Chorus, and declined to share what it had cost for the company to pursue the court case.
He said Creative had filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on Justice Dobson's November decision, which he hoped would occur later this year.
Source: rnz
