|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 4, 2023 17:51:34 GMT -5
MNKD GLP-1 patent www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20150080298, wherein the GLP-1 molecule is selected from the group consisting of a native GLP-1, a GLP-1 metabolite, a GLP-1 analog, a GLP-1 derivative, a long acting GLP-1 analog, a GLP-1 mimetic, a GLP-1 peptide analog, or a biosynthetic GLP-1 analog, or combinations thereof and wherein said GLP-1 molecule has at least one biological activity of native GLP-1. Read more: www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20150080298 |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 5, 2023 5:51:16 GMT -5
Publication date: 2015-03-19 When did Peter Richardson leave MNKD? Does Peter hold this patent outside of MNKD? This patent mentions obesity 21 times. It seems Peter and team thought it "would" help with obesity rather than "may". It seems like they were going down the path of taking a puff before a meal or snack. "The method of treating hyperglycemia, diabetes, and/or obesity can be designed so that the patient can receive at least one dose of a GLP-1 formulation in proximity to a meal or snack" Read more: www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20150080298 |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 5, 2023 10:37:00 GMT -5
Publication date: 2015-03-19 When did Peter Richardson leave MNKD? Does Peter hold this patent outside of MNKD? This patent mentions obesity 21 times. It seems Peter and team thought it "would" help with obesity rather than "may". It seems like they were going down the path of taking a puff before a meal or snack. "The method of treating hyperglycemia, diabetes, and/or obesity can be designed so that the patient can receive at least one dose of a GLP-1 formulation in proximity to a meal or snack" Read more: www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20150080298Most likely MNKD owns the rights to the patent.
Trying to manage satiety/hunger is an interesting challenge. Both too long or too short appear non-optimal. What's the "sweet spot"? Using GLP-1 to help change eating habits and to be satisfied with less food does seem valuable (says the shelves empty of Ozempic).
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 6, 2023 6:06:05 GMT -5
Publication date: 2015-03-19 When did Peter Richardson leave MNKD? Does Peter hold this patent outside of MNKD? This patent mentions obesity 21 times. It seems Peter and team thought it "would" help with obesity rather than "may". It seems like they were going down the path of taking a puff before a meal or snack. "The method of treating hyperglycemia, diabetes, and/or obesity can be designed so that the patient can receive at least one dose of a GLP-1 formulation in proximity to a meal or snack" Read more: www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20150080298Of course the patent mentions obesity. The patent attorney would be negligent if it didn't. The way patents work is that you have at least one solid thing to hang the patent on, in this case it's controlling glucose (134 mentions), and then you tack on every vaguely possible situation and permutation because it's free so why not. I have patents in my name that the attorneys added things they thought were possible applications added even though I disagreed - needless to say their version won! It's extremely unlikely that Richardson has not assigned this patent to Mannkind. Certainly all my patents are assigned and most contracts specify that they own any patents produced. |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 6, 2023 6:56:22 GMT -5
Aged - since you have been through the patent process many times can you please explain why Peter would assign this patent?
In 2015 Peter was working for Alcon. In 2008 or there abouts MNKD stopped work on TS GLP1. He left MNKD in 2012. The publication date is 3/19/2015, nearly three years later.
IDK, maybe its me but if worked on something 7 years ago and nothing was done with it and I still thought it was a great idea I am not sure I would go back to my previous employer who had no interest. Then Mago posts in 12/2022 MNKD files a very similar patent.
Lets assume the publication date is 18 months after the PTO received it. It almost seems like Peter started putting the application together right after he left MNKD. Does that seem correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 6, 2023 7:37:51 GMT -5
I’ve worked with folks who wrote patent applications. Peter doesn’t assign the patent. The inventors are listed, and from what I understand, typically compensated by their employer for developing the patent application either per patent application or as a condition of employment. There’s never a guarantee that an application will become a patent. They do sometimes get rejected. And they can cost anywhere from $25,000 to $250,000 in legal fees over 3 to 5 years (average time to be granted). The employer bears the cost of filing and whatever other legal work is required, and will sometimes provide additional compensation to the inventors if the patent application becomes an actual patent. Sometimes patents are filed to build a patented “body of work” and are not intended to necessarily be developed and implemented but simply can be used defensively in disputes.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 6, 2023 8:14:57 GMT -5
I’ve worked with folks who wrote patent applications. Peter doesn’t assign the patent. The inventors are listed, and from what I understand, typically compensated by their employer for developing the patent application either per patent application or as a condition of employment. There’s never a guarantee that an application will become a patent. They do sometimes get rejected. And they can cost anywhere from $25,000 to $250,000 in legal fees over 3 to 5 years (average time to be granted). The employer bears the cost of filing and whatever other legal work is required, and will sometimes provide additional compensation to the inventors if the patent application becomes an actual patent. Sometimes patents are filed to build a patented “body of work” and are not intended to necessarily be developed and implemented but simply can be used defensively in disputes. OK. Peter started working for Alcon 3/2012. This patent application seems to have been filed after that date. Who do you think the employer was? - MNKD, Alcon or Peter LLC? |
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 6, 2023 8:23:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 6, 2023 9:18:03 GMT -5
Abandoned or not, nothing to stop another investigation and more patent filings.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on Jul 6, 2023 9:59:45 GMT -5
Abandoned or not, nothing to stop another investigation and more patent filings. Mango posted a refilling last December. At this point I really don't think Mike has any plans for this. I hope I am wrong but its not on any pipeline slide and he was looking at TS GLP1 for T2 diabetes not the diet market. I think he likes smaller opportunities where he does not have to compete against BP after his afrezza experience. TS GLP1 would once again pit MNKD vs BP unless he gets a real partner. |
|
|
|
Post by lennymnkd on Jul 6, 2023 13:00:48 GMT -5
Novo Nordisk spent $11 million on food and travel for doctors to promote weight loss and type 2 diabetes drug Ozempic. Yahoo Finance Healthcare Reporter Anjalee Khemlani discusses Novo Nordisk's lobbying, as well as Moderna's deal with China.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 6, 2023 16:10:14 GMT -5
Abandoned or not, nothing to stop another investigation and more patent filings. Prior art. It makes a patent defense borderline impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 6, 2023 17:22:36 GMT -5
Aged - since you have been through the patent process many times can you please explain why Peter would assign this patent? In 2015 Peter was working for Alcon. In 2008 or there abouts MNKD stopped work on TS GLP1. He left MNKD in 2012. The publication date is 3/19/2015, nearly three years later. IDK, maybe its me but if worked on something 7 years ago and nothing was done with it and I still thought it was a great idea I am not sure I would go back to my previous employer who had no interest. Then Mago posts in 12/2022 MNKD files a very similar patent. Lets assume the publication date is 18 months after the PTO received it. It almost seems like Peter started putting the application together right after he left MNKD. Does that seem correct? He will assign the patent because that's what his contract of employment says he will do. It's a pretty standard clause if you work in an area where discovering new things or processes is a possibility. By all means cut out your old employer, but don't be surprised when you end up in court and they win, it's a simple breach of contract. I don't think you understand the patent process so lets take this one as an example. Richardson will not have filed this, he is just one of four inventors on that filing, it will have been done by Mannkind during an intellectual property sweep. These are periodic sweeps through the company's assets looking for patentable material. Everything then gets thrown at the patent attorney who decides if it's patentable in their view - this is an extremely low bar for reasons that become clear. The date the work is done is irrelevant to the filing which is often, as in this case, years later. There is a common misconception that patents are there to stop people from stealing your invention. These days patents are primarily used as weapons in court, both offensively and defensively. Defensively they are used to counter-sue for breaching one of your patents if someone tries to sue you. Offensively you get patent trolls and companies like UTHR using them offensively. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 6, 2023 19:31:01 GMT -5
Abandoned or not, nothing to stop another investigation and more patent filings. Prior art. It makes a patent defense borderline impossible. I’m not a patent attorney (or any kind of attorney) but my understanding is prior art is what can prevent filing a patent application (because the patent will most likely be denied). I assume a previously unspecified formulation of GLP-1 in inhalable form could be patentable. As you’ve pointed out, however, patent attorneys like to be very broad in their claims so being very specific might result in a patentable filing but not be of much offensive or defensive value. All that said, I doubt IPR or lack thereof is the major inhibiting factor. My guess is time, cost, and labor prevent it from being a priority. |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 6, 2023 19:57:38 GMT -5
Prior art. It makes a patent defense borderline impossible. I’m not a patent attorney (or any kind of attorney) but my understanding is prior art is what can prevent filing a patent application (because the patent will most likely be denied). I assume a previously unspecified formulation of GLP-1 in inhalable form could be patentable. As you’ve pointed out, however, patent attorneys like to be very broad in their claims so being very specific might result in a patentable filing but not be of much offensive or defensive value. All that said, I doubt IPR or lack thereof is the major inhibiting factor. My guess is time, cost, and labor prevent it from being a priority. I'm not a patent attorney either but I have been on the patentee side a few times  You would need something that was fundamentally different from the old patent since that would now be the prior art. The issue the patent had, and why it was abandoned from what I can make out, was because of prior art - there was already something so close that the patent office challenged it (the office action) and Mannkind decide it was better just dump it. |
|
