Posts Tagged: "vaccine"

As Pfizer and BioNTech announced this week that results of their COVID-19 vaccine have exceeded expectations, the technology behind the vaccine (messenger RNA, or mRNA) has taken center stage. Last month, Moderna Therapeutics, one of the global leaders in the race to produce a COVID-19 vaccine using mRNA, made the following statement regarding enforcement of its patents: “We feel a special obligation under the current circumstances to use our resources to bring this pandemic to an end as quickly as possible. Accordingly, while the pandemic continues, Moderna will not enforce our COVID-19 related patents against those making vaccines intended to combat the pandemic. Further, to eliminate any perceived IP barriers to vaccine development during the pandemic period, upon request we are also willing to license our intellectual property for COVID-19 vaccines to others for the post pandemic period.” This post examines why Moderna made this patent pledge by examining its mRNA technology, go-to-market status, patent landscape, and market position.

On July 16, the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and Canada’s Communications Security Establishment (CSE), with the United States’ National Security Agency (NSA) in agreement, published a report titled: “Advisory: APT29 targets COVID-19 vaccine development.” The report provided details of Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) recently used by a cyber espionage group known as APT29, “the Dukes” or “Cozy Bear”. The United States’ Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS CISA) endorsed the technical detail and mitigation advice provided in the report. According to a press release associated with the report, “NCSC are almost certain (95%+) that APT29 are part of the Russian Intelligence Services” and “NCSC assess it is highly likely (80 – 90%) that [APT29’s] activity was to collect information on COVID-19 vaccine research or research into the COVID-19 virus itself.”

Today, like so much of the rest of the world, the United States is faced with many shortages due to the coronavirus pandemic, including personal protective equipment, basic medical supplies, and qualified medical staff. Of course, the lack of treatments or vaccine is a huge problem. Another secular problem is the lack of a quick, inexpensive, reliable test for the virus. But a test for the virus is a diagnostic method, and that is a big problem for U.S. patent laws because diagnostic methods are simply not patent eligible in the United States. This is also a big problem for the world because ever since the veil of patent eligibility was lifted for the life sciences sector in 1981 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the U.S. has dominated the biotechnology sector, specifically, and life science sectors more generally speaking. In 1981, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates saying that what was created by man could be patented, and if it could be owned it could be invested in, and investors rushed in and the biotechnology industry that we know today was born. But what the Supreme Court gave they can, and ultimately did, take away.

We’ve learned from experience that just because a theory’s off base doesn’t mean it won’t take root, particularly when it involves patents and medicine. “No Vaccines Before the Next Zika Outbreak?: A Case for IP Preparedness”  by Professor Ana Santos Rutshman, a faculty fellow in Health Law and Intellectual Property at DePaul University, Co-Director of the Global Healthcare Innovation Alliances at Duke University, and consultant to the World Health Organization, previews  her upcoming UCLA law review article. It could be titled “Developing Treatments Without Patents: Let’s Give it a Try.” The article blames exclusive licensing for the lack of a Zika vaccine citing the failed deal between the Department of the Army and Sanofi. The remedy: banning exclusive licensing for federally supported inventions related to specific diseases while imposing price controls on other life science discoveries. Before this bandwagon rolls, let’s look at the quality of its construction.

Being an entrepreneur isn’t easy. While it is a tough road for anyone, it’s particularly tough if you’re in the public sector and threatened by politicians… Rather, the march in provision is intended to insure that good faith efforts are being made towards commercialization and that sufficient quantities of resulting products are available to meet public health or safety needs. If the government is ever pressured to misapply the law for price control, the bottom would fall out of our public technology transfer system. Such a change would not be restricted to drugs but to any product commercialized under Bayh-Dole. What company would commercialize a federally funded invention if an agency could retroactively apply a completely arbitrary standard of fair pricing to justify taking the technology away through compulsory licensing? The answer is easy to guess.

Respiratory syncytial virus, commonly referred to simply as RSV, is a highly contagious viral disease and is one of the most common causes of bronchiolitis and pneumonia. Up to 2.5 million infections occur in the U.S. each year. It is also the leading cause of childhood hospitalization globally. Nearly all children are infected with the virus at least once by the age of two to three years, and many develop pulmonary disease and/or asthma that persists throughout adult life, making them susceptible to re-infection. RSV particularly dangerous for premature babies, children with preexisting health conditions and the elderly, and is responsible for 16,000 deaths each year in adults over 65.

With the Cures Act now signed into law, the incoming Trump administration has an opportunity to advance the broad-spectrum medical countermeasure goal set forth by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 2015 Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasure Enterprise, otherwise known as PHEMCE. If achieved, the PHEMCE broad-spectrum goal would spur the advancement of innovative therapeutics to defend against the many pathogens that are not addressed with traditional disease-specific drugs or vaccines approved by the FDA.

The malaria vaccine may have the capability to prevent millions of cases of malaria, especially in young children who are incredibly susceptible to the parasitic disease. Studies from 2011 and 2012 dampened optimism about this malaria treatment as the vaccine stopped malaria episodes in less than half of those children younger than two years of age that received it. However, follow-up data showed that when a booster shot was applied a total of 1,774 cases of malaria were prevented per 1,000 vaccinations. Without a booster, the vaccination still prevented 1,363 malaria cases.