Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

ROCHE GROWTH HORMONE PATENT DID NOT "ENABLE" PROTROPIN

Executive Summary

ROCHE GROWTH HORMONE PATENT DID NOT "ENABLE" PROTROPIN manufacture, a San Francisco Federal Court judge noted Aug. 4 in a ruling in favor of defendant Genentech. "Despite strong continuing interest in synthesis of human growth hormone," the decision states, "researchers in the field were unable to totally synthesize the hormone in a usable form" using the method covered by the Roche patent. "The [Roche] patent therefore did not enable the making and using of the claimed invention." The suit, filed by Roche in September 1986, claimed that Genentech's recombinant hGH product infringed on a 1974 patent licensed by the Hormone Research Foundation to Roche. The patent, No. 3,853,833, covers a product chemically different from both Protropin (somatrem) and naturally occurring hGH, as well as an apparently obsolete production process -- solid phase peptide synthesis. "Protropin differs from the structure identified in [Roche's patent] in that it contains two additional proteins (192 instead of 190) and has slightly different proteins in the positions corresponding to positions 73 (glutamic acid rather than glutamine), 106 (aspartic acid rather than asparagine) and 108 (asparagine rather than aspartic acid) of the protein sequence shown in [Roche's patent]," the court said. Protropin also differs from the naturally occurring hormone by a single methionyl group. That difference was noted in an earlier court decision against Genentech, which challenged the orphan exclusivity of Lilly's recombinant product Humatrope. The court ruled that the Lilly product, which has a structure identical to the natural substance, was different from Protropin and therefore entitled to market exclusivity ("The Pink Sheet" Sept. 28, 1987, p. 6). That decision has postponed the introduction of Genentech's second-generation product, Protropin II, for seven years. "The properties are different, and in chemical structures as sensitive as these, the literal infringement showing must be exacting," the most recent court decision states. "Genentech's synthetic hGH does not have a structure corresponding to the structure of [Roche's patented product]." Ironically, Lilly avoided similar litigation with Roche through a sublicensing arrangement.
Advertisement
Advertisement
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS014139

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel