[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.