Entecavir, marketed as Baraclude by Bristol-Meyers Squibb (BMS), is an oral antiviral drug that is used for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections and also in the prevention of HBV re-infection after a liver transplant. Entecavir was derived by modifying the natural nucleoside Deoxyguanosine. They are both identical in structure with an exception in the 5’ position of the carbon ring. Deoxyguanosine has an oxygen atom in the 5’ position whereas Entecavir has a carbon-carbon double bond.1 Since BMS was the original patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,206,244, claim 8, filed in 1990) holder for Entecavir, there were no generic competitions for the drug. The patent had been set to expire in 2015. In 2010, Teva Pharmaceuticals filed
…show more content…
Teva Pharmaceuticals’ main argument was that BMS’s ‘244 patent would be considered as obvious under patentability condition 35 U.S.C § 103(a) in which the incentive to produce Entecavir would have led one to select certain lead compounds and modify them to obtain the desired drug.5 Teva had argued that a person of …show more content…
Teva court case, I also found that it was absurd that BMS’s ‘244 patent could be invalidated due to obviousness. It did not seem right that a new chemical compound that took researchers a long time to create would be categorized as “obvious.” However, as I did more research and gained a better understanding of the case, I now understand the court’s reason for their decision. I do believe that BMS could have done a better job at establishing a better foundation for their drug especially in presenting an invention that could not have been made obvious by a
Teva Pharmaceuticals’ main argument was that BMS’s ‘244 patent would be considered as obvious under patentability condition 35 U.S.C § 103(a) in which the incentive to produce Entecavir would have led one to select certain lead compounds and modify them to obtain the desired drug.5 Teva had argued that a person of …show more content…
Teva court case, I also found that it was absurd that BMS’s ‘244 patent could be invalidated due to obviousness. It did not seem right that a new chemical compound that took researchers a long time to create would be categorized as “obvious.” However, as I did more research and gained a better understanding of the case, I now understand the court’s reason for their decision. I do believe that BMS could have done a better job at establishing a better foundation for their drug especially in presenting an invention that could not have been made obvious by a