[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.

[bawolff]

Ah yes, the ole', it can't be a mistake because companies don't make mistakes therefor it must have been intentional.

I know you're not the one making the argument but it really is rediculously silly to argue that it must be an intentional action to not do something because in the past the company wanted to do the thing. While duh, a mistake by definition is something you dont want to do.

[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.

[devilbunny]

> it's not a person/org's specific blog post

Yeah, it really is, even if what's linked to is one post rather than the entire blog.

His stuff pops up here often enough. He really does blog at Science. Has for years and years.

If you have a background in chemistry, it's fairly accessible (i.e., he very rarely talks about anything in a depth that an undergrad chem major would have trouble understanding - which, given that most chemists start branching off very quickly in grad school, is roughly the appropriate depth for writing intended for a general chemistry audience, since it's the last common knowledge level).

[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?