Flutemetamol and Pittsburgh Compound B are used as Amyloid Binders used for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis.
Hi. Interesting question! Just a bit searching in the patent database resulted in the following documents: WO2006014382 (PIB), a worldwide patent application; in the European phase (EP1768709) the application has been refused: see reason. D10 (scientific publication) is a novelty destroying doc in the search report of cited documents. This means that PIB cannot protected in Europe by EP1768709. Flutemetamol is granted by EP3368518B1 (EP phase of WO2017071980). Be aware that EP3368518B1 covers a method for producting flutemetamol. EP2509637 is an older method for producing flutemetamol, as well as EP
Just still a few additions: EP2182988 is still an older granted patent and WO2007064773 (University of Pittsburgh), which is withdrawn in the European phase. So, considering all these data and knowing that the University of Pittsburgh applications are not valid in Europe; an infringer or counterfeiter can only be accused by a patent proprietor with a valid patent in those countries where the patent is still valid. In the particular case of Markush claims (=many substituents on a basic structure), invalidation of a patent can be supported by showing that replacing one substituent by another has no 'inventive step' and can be considered as obvious for a skilled person. By the way, this short analysis is only for Europe.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Force