>> Exactly, drug companies use this technique to continue a revenue
>> stream, that otherwise dries up after the brand name patent expires.
>> People knowledgeable, physicians, pharmacists can steer patients to
>What I do not understand is the legal basis upon which new patents can
>be issued for a single pure enantiomer. I would think that in most
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Bill
Legal basis, not sure. I would think the original patent includes both
isomers. So why don't they both expire? Its not really a novel
compound. Probably need a patent attorney to explain. The PBM's are on
to this practice, they almost never pay for newer items, without prior
authorization or tiered co-pays. The drug manufactures are trying to
protect bottom line, because low numbers of new drugs currently in
pipeline.

Signature
mred
Salmon Egg - 02 Mar 2008 18:40 GMT
> Legal basis, not sure. I would think the original patent includes both
> isomers. So why don't they both expire? Its not really a novel
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> protect bottom line, because low numbers of new drugs currently in
> pipeline.
As much as I detest parasitical pharmaceutical companies, just because a
compound is known does not preclude patents for its manufacture. For
example, ammonia was a well known compound before the Haber process for
manufacturing it was developed. Haber deserved to be considered an
inventor.
My argument is that many of the processes used for manufacture afre
likely to be what any competent chemical engineer could do one he or
possibly she, knows of similar previously known manufacture.
Bill
mred - 02 Mar 2008 22:50 GMT
>> Legal basis, not sure. I would think the original patent includes both
>> isomers. So why don't they both expire? Its not really a novel
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>Bill
How about the same drug, but different strength. How is that patent
protected? I guess I have to research patent law.

Signature
mred