« I'll Have the Price They're Having |
Main
| Will the Uncommon Work for the Common Good? »
August 24, 2004
Living by the IP Sword
Posted by Derek
Back when I was in graduate school, we didn't have these here fancy automated literature searches here. So I had to find out in the old-fashioned way that the molecule I was working on had just been synthesized (first) by someone else: by picking up the library's latest issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society (in its old grey-covered era) and coming across it in the table of contents.
Not a fun moment. I gave a muffled shout and started paging frantically to the article. And yep, there was another research group's total synthesis all right. The only consolation was that they weren't doing it the way that I was, and my route was better. Allegedly. After this, my attitude was "The world does not need another synthesis of rosaramicin. But I do."
Now that I'm in industry, I don't fear the open literature so much. I fear the patent literature. Whenever a drug company starts serious work on a chemical series, it puts out a sieve of automated searches for the core structure and all its close relatives. If you're ripping off someone else's known structure, which we all do from time to time, then you really spend a lot of time looking over your shoulder. These searches usually run once a week, and you want to see a comforting "0 results" come up, which tells you that you're still in the clear. Sometimes you're in the middle of the road, though, with the high-beam headlights bearing down on you. Most people with pharma experience have had a chemical series (or a whole project) yanked out from under them because it turns out that someone else was already working on it.
I can think of at least one case where it turns out that my group and a group at another company had stumbled across the exact same chemical series, and we were both working away at it at exactly the same time. Neither of us knew it at the time, of course, but when the patent applications published, everything became clear. We'd filed our applications with a few weeks of each other. And neither project was taking off from a known compound in the field; we'd apparently each discovered our leads through random screening. Makes you wonder about how much overlap there is between company screening collections. . .
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Patents and IP
- RELATED ENTRIES
- Shire's Replagal Problems: An Inside Look?
- Bungled Structure, And How
- Roche Closes Nutley, Once Its US R&D Home
- The Next Five Years in the Drug Industry
- A Kinase Inhibitor Learns Something New
- The Good Ol' Friedel-Crafts
- Merck's Madagascar Marketing Mess
- Scientific Literacy: Where Do You Stop?
1. Lawrence B. Ebert on September 1, 2004 9:00 PM writes...
In the area of fexofenadine patents, there was a bit of confusion caused by the use of some unusual nomenclature. A different kind of confusion existed in the published patent applications of Jan-Hendrik Schon of Lucent/Bell Labs, which referred to "methylene trihalide" and "methylene tribromide," even though the corresponding scientific publications did not make this mistake.
In terms of homologs in the prior art of fluoxetine, there was a curiously well-researched discussion in, of all places, the New York Press.
In the case of nabumetone, the drug company proceeded even though there was prior art in the Indian Journal of Chemistry.
As an aside, I have a blog up at IPBiz.blogspot; even talk about a certain ex-editor of a medical journal.
Permalink to Comment