When two companies are involved in a patent dispute, there can only be one winner—except, it seems, when methods for developing improved antibodies are concerned. When the European Patent Office's (EPO; Munich, Germany) opposition division upheld Cambridge Antibody Technology's (CAT; Melbourne, UK) key "Winter II" patent at the end of October, both CAT and MorphoSys (Munich, Germany), which had opposed the patent, claimed victory. "Favorable Decision in EPO Opposition Proceedings," read the CAT release; "MorphoSys Prevails in CAT Patent Dispute" was how the MorphoSys spin machine saw it. However, even though other intellectual property (IP) disputes between the two parties are still outstanding, the recent decision may indeed benefit both, simply because it unplugs the sclerosis of indecision that had stifled the businesses of both concerns.
The patent was granted originally by the EPO in 1994 and was opposed by MorphoSys soon afterward. "Although we opposed the patent in its entirety," says Simon Moroney, MorphoSys' CEO, "we were only really concerned about claim 32." While the other claims are to technical details of CAT's PCR-based approach to phage display techniques for antibody development, claim 32 originally sought more general protection and appeared to cover virtually all methods of producing libraries of antibody genes. MorphoSys was concerned that the claim encompassed its own HuCAL (human combinatorial antibody library) method. MorphoSys thus endeavored to get the EPO to restrict claim 32 to what CAT has actually demonstrated in its patent application.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution