1. Abraxis denied patent for combination of Taxane

Abraxis denied patent for combination of Taxane

The company filed the patent application for combinations, modes of administration of therapeutic agents and the combination therapy

By: | Chennai | Published: January 13, 2016 12:25 AM

In a setback to US-based Abraxis Bioscience, the country’s patent office has refused to grant a patent to the company’s invention related to a combination of  Taxane – a type of cancer drug that blocks cell growth by stopping cell division in the body –  with an additional chemotherapeutic agent.

Abraxis Bioscience, a fully integrated biotechnology company which was acquired by Celgene Corporation in 2010, had applied for patent in 2007 in India claiming that the instant application suggests to solve the posed problem by combining Abraxane with an additional chemotherapeutic agent.

When the patent office raised objections regarding the claims, the company widened the scope by introducing Taxane which basically includes Paclitaxel which is marketed under brand name Abraxane.

The company filed the patent application for combinations, modes of administration of therapeutic agents and the combination therapy, claiming priority to an international patent application, under Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

The authority raised objection that the claims in the international phase were method of treatment claims which were amended as composition claims and filed at national phase. By the amendment the whole scope had been changed and was not allowable.

S Kundu, assistant controller of patents & designs, Kolkata, while rejecting the application observed that since the application was a PCT national phase one, wherein the PCT claims being related to method of treatment, the claims were not allowable under Section 3(i) of the Patent Act, as well as the proposed amended claims were not allowable under Section 57 & Section 59 of the Act.

The patent office has also raised objections to the claims, pointing out that application does not comply with the requirements of Section 10(4) of the Act as there was no clarity and disclosure. It found that there was no specific disclosure for a combination of taxane / albumin nanoparticles with the specific chemotherapeutic agents as claimed.

  1. No Comments.

Go to Top