[0cf8612b2e1e]

I always wonder-in this case of such an epic company fuck up, does anyone ever get fired? Or is responsibility so diffuse that nobody is ultimately responsible?

Pharma companies are really nothing more than holders of time-limited, expensive, exclusive IP. The number one priority should be to maintain those protections as long as possible. How could any patent be allowed to lapse, even if there was limited commercial value, let alone, a blockbuster drug making billions?

[bawolff]

Typically when people get fired for something like this they are just the scapegoat.

A failure like this isn't just one dude forgetting, its a system failure where policies and checks failed. If it is solely up to one person that is a failure in and of itself.

[nextos]

Some people, including legal experts, claim it could have been intentional: https://www.legal.io/articles/5691258/Novo-Nordisk-Lets-Cana....

I was surprised Science didn't discuss this option. However, reader comments in Science do comment on this possibility.

The idea is that letting the patent lapse would avoid getting regulated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.

I know several people working at NN, and it's quite chaotic and political, so I wouldn't rule out an internal oversight.

[nl]

I'm having trouble understanding the argument outlined in the legal.io link:

> Nordisk has rejected any suggestion that the loss of its Canadian semaglutide patent was a simple mistake. In a statement cited by Fortune, the company stressed that its intellectual property strategy is “carefully considered at a global level,” indicating intentionality rather than a blunder.

> Legal analysts believe the decision was deliberate. Steven Shape, IP Chair at Omnus Law, noted that the annual $250–$450 fee was negligible compared to the looming expiration of both data exclusivity and patent protection in January 2026. Shape argued the lapse was likely “a clear decision by Novo,” not an error.

> That interpretation is bolstered by the company’s simultaneous filing of a Certificate of Supplementary Protection (CSP) in Canada, suggesting Novo valued extended market exclusivity beyond the patent’s life. But because the underlying patent lapsed early, the CSP cannot take effect.

If the interpretation is bolstered by the company’s filing for CSP, but they were ineligible for CSP because they let the patent expire doesn't that imply it was an error?

I'd never heard of CSPs before, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_protection_certi... has some details. They seem to be a patent extension in all but name.

[simonh]

It depends what the “simultaneous filing of the CSP” was simultaneous with. If it was simultaneous with letting the patent expire that makes no sense. If it was simultaneous with the original filing of the patent that does make sense.

[bawolff]

Based on the gov website it sounds like it has to be filed within 120 days of filing the patent, so i guess its the latter.

It might not be as nonsensical as the alternative, but I still dont understand how the CSP filing makes it any less likely letting the patent lapse was a mistake.

[simonh]

I think it's interpreted as meaning that the company is generally committed to patent protection, and so if they let it lapse in this case despite several warning letters that it's more likely it was a conscious decision for commercial reasons. Which is what they claim. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument.

[kelseydh]

Back in 2018, it wasn't widely known that Ozempic would become a blockbuster weight loss drug. So it was possible they made the business decision based on its more limited use as a diabetes drug.

[wasabi991011]

Just FYI, this isn't "by Science", it's by Derek Lowe, this is his blog, which is hosted on Science>Commentary>Blogs. In its description, Lowe says it is "editorially independent".

[jhbadger]

Yeah, Lowe doesn't work for Science -- he is a pharmaceutical chemist who has worked for various companies -- his "In the Pipeline" blog is interesting because while academic scientists often blog, industrial ones rarely do (perhaps for legal/IP reasons).

[consp]

You just described how the general public should view opinion pieces but acts like the previous comment and assumes it is "news". (To add: this is very human to do)

[philipallstar]

Then they'd be better off removing this section if "editorially independent" means "we will take things that even in their headline may not be true at all".

[jbrnh]

It's a blog. It references an interview. The post is also four month old. "In the Pipeline" is generally a fantastic resource on the pharma industry and chemistry news.

[philipallstar]

> It's a blog.

Not really. It doesn't look like a blog, and it's not a person/org's specific blog post. It's just called "blog" in a breadcrumb somewhere, which most people won't read. It's actual a guest editorial, but still - doesn't really look like one.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

> Derek Lowe’s commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry. An editorially independent blog, all content is Derek’s own, and he does not in any way speak for his employer.

The top of the sidebar describes what "In the Pipeline" is.

[bawolff]

Given how much of a blockbuster drug it is, wouldn't it be worth it for generics to rerun the trials in this specific case?

[aspenmayer]

> If it is solely up to one person that is a failure in and of itself.

I would agree. The so-called bus factor has been common knowledge in the industries in question for literal decades now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor

> An early instance of this sort of query was when Michael McLay publicly asked, in 1994, what would happen to the Python language if Guido van Rossum were to be hit by a bus.

http://legacy.python.org/search/hypermail/python-1994q2/1040...

[nextos]

The process for the patent to lapse in Canada is quite long, and you get warning letters once deadlines are close.

There is also a possibility of a paying a late fee and, finally, there is also a reinstatement process.

NN could have missed all these, but they would have to be a really dysfunctional organization. Definitely not a low bus-factor situation.

[aspenmayer]

I wasn’t casting aspersions on NN, but jumping off from the allusion that was made by the user who I replied to.

I don’t know what kind of sequence of events could lead to this outcome at NN, but perhaps they were hoist by their own petard. I’m reminded of the “money on the ground” joke involving two economists, which is semi-famous in these parts.

To wit:

> Economist 1: Look, there’s $20 on the ground!

> Economist 2: No there isn’t. If there were, someone would have picked it up already.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/19/money-on-the-ground/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28029044

Perhaps the folks at NN are so busy picking up (billions of) dollars that they neglect the dimes on the ground that it would cost to comply with these seemingly trivial, even menial functional requirements of keeping their money printer running.

I’m honestly as befuddled by this brouhaha as anyone. This is a monumental failure of multiple entire business units to perform the core competencies of their jobs. That said, I could honestly believe that the number of people whose job it is (or perhaps was) to worry about the patent expiry at all, let alone be aware of the repeated communiques from the Canadian patent office, is quite low. I would further believe that the accountability dodging has only just begun behind closed doors, if the internal game of megacorporate musical chairs hasn’t already concluded well before this news broke and reached the shores of HN.

[Marsymars]

Even at large corps, it's fairly common to outsource IP work to law firms that specialize in IP - and if you're Danish, it might make sense to outsource to a Danish law firm that has its own worldwide IP contacts (rather than getting your own worldwide branch offices to handle local IP laws everywhere). One of said contacts might then pawn off the work onto a junior, who then has their assistant handle all communiques from CIPO. Said assistant could then entirely drop the ball.

I've zero idea about anything specific to Novo Nordisk, but have enough exposure to IP in Canada to envision the above happening in other cases.

[xmcqdpt2]

That may be true if IP is not your core business but it is basically the core business of pharmaceutical companies. I don't speak from experience but it would seem surprising to me that any major pharma would outsource IP protection in a major market to contractors they can't sue for billions if they mess up.

It seems much more likely to me that they did it on purpose, as they claim to have.

[philipallstar]

> Perhaps the folks at NN are so busy picking up (billions of) dollars that they neglect the dimes on the ground that it would cost to comply with these seemingly trivial, even menial functional requirements of keeping their money printer running.

This isn't what that joke means.

[nijuashi]

Saying pharma companies are just holders of ‘expensive, time-limited IP’ is not only wrong, it’s offensive to those of us who actually do the science. We spend years designing, testing, and validating drugs, not scheming to hike prices. We’re not all Shkrelis out here.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

I was a bench scientist (proteomics) in pharma for over a decade. There is plenty of sweat and blood going into the pipeline, but a company is ultimately defined by the strength of its (patent) portfolio. Which is why a patent cliff drives their valuations.

[vintermann]

But are you the pharma companies? It's not mandatory to identify that strongly with your employer.

[cperciva]

I may be wrong, but aren't most drugs sold by large pharma companies actually developed elsewhere and then acquired?

[workerthread]

Novo Nordisk does the vast majority of their RD in-house. I can’t speak to other companies.

[adolph]

I've read a little about Novo Nordisk's history and it is a pretty interesting story about aligning financial success with human flourishing. The pharmaco is a subsidiary of a anti-diabetes foundation started from proceeds from getting permission to produce insulin.

The foundation has an objective of providing support for scientific, humanitarian and social purposes. . . . In 2024, the foundation distributed a total of DKK 10.1 billion (approx. $1.39 billion) and paid out DKK 6.9 billion ($1.08 billion) in grants. [0]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novo_Nordisk_Foundation

[j7ake]

A drug is almost never acquired that can then be put directly to patients and sold.

Large pharma makes strategic bets on several drugs, some initiated in house, others acquired, but they all just go through further optimization and testing before it is approved.

Huge RnD is required even if drug is “simply acquired”

[BDPW]

Having seen AstraZeneca inside, this is not the case. There's quite a lot of development going on. It is all non-fundamental though, the focus is heavily on late stage. No identification of disease mechanisms and such.

[foofoo12]

> Or is responsibility so diffuse that nobody is ultimately responsible

It doesn't take a very large company for this to happen. I've seen it in a sub 50 person company. There is a task to be done but no one can do it because everyone involved is waiting for someone else to do something. It's like a Mexican standoff.

[mcny]

It could be something as simple as answering the phone. Or checking if the default image for a product on an ecommerce website exists. If you answer the phone or write a quick script to check if the default image exists, now you sort of become the person who is "expected" to do this task.

Boggles my mind.

[foofoo12]

Spot on. Often it's also thankless tasks whilst being foundation for the company to run. Someone has to answer the phone.

[userbinator]

Or is responsibility so diffuse that nobody is ultimately responsible?

That's exactly how things like this happen. No one has responsibility, thinking it's someone else's problem, so no one bothers to do the needful.

[JumpCrisscross]

> thinking it's someone else's problem, so no one bothers to do the needful

Or it’s in someone’s political interest to let the fuckup play out.

[ionwake]

after working in many companies for decades I can guarantee that the person responsible is some middle manager, who will just blame one of her/his workers who had that piece of work "deprioritised" to instead focus on the styling of a spreadsheet. The paper trail will point to the manager, who will just claim it was allocated to a problem character.

The cartharsis comes in knowing that them firing the innocent just keeps them repeating the mistake.

[chvid]

They are getting fired now - as Novo is in major crisis mode and going through its largest layoffs ever.

[m463]

to me, I am reminded of countless DNS renewal mistakes that are publicized.

[hibikir]

In your typical large company, there's always enough nebulous process as to minimize personal accountability for any decision that is made. There might be a decision maker in practice, but there will be enough wide meetings and committees so that the groups as a whole can make bad decision, or a very immoral decisions, with minimal risk of consequences for anyone involved. Raising tough questions in those rooms is a good way to not make friends, and end up isolated in an unimportant position after the next semi-anual reorg.

Even in companies with a strong CEO who is, in fact, lording over everyone, mechanisms will be built to make sure said CEO's bad decisions were group decisions, and that most of the people around him agreed.

[Rebelgecko]

Is this the patent equivalent of letting your website's cert expire?

[crummy]

More like letting the domain expire, and someone else snapping it up before you can renew.

[Eupolemos]

Uh, Novo is having an absolutely massive firing round; the CEO got axed first and Denmark now has a glut of qualified unemployed which we're all doing our best to hire ASAP :D (we just had the lowest unemployment rate in our history)

(Novo hired _way_ too many people because 'infinite money')

[benrawk]

I mean the CEO got fired…