Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 245 posts

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#151

Post by simonh »

nl wrote: post #150
nextos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 deli…

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.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#152

Post by nl »

enslavedrobot wrote: post #142

Fun fact: Novo Nordisk's first success was selling insulin, which was discovered in Canada and licensed by the Scientists who's discovered it for free to the danish company in exchange for a promise to use the revenues "for good purposes". Hopefully this patent SNAFU makes up for 1% of that monumental screw job.

Insulin is cheap everywhere in the world except the US, and it's been around since the 1920s.

The price has nothing to do with Novo Nordisk's distribution of it last century.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8597930/

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#153

Post by decimalenough »

jzebedee wrote: post #4

> Prof. Michael Hoffman from Toronto put me on to the Canadian Patent Database, where you can find that Novo did file a patent there for semaglutide. . .but the last time they paid the annual maintenance fee on it was 2018! > You can even find a letter where their lawyers send a refund request for the 2017 maintenance fee ($250) because Novo apparently wanted some more time to see if they wanted to pay it. > On the s…

Remember that back in the dim antiquity of 2017, semaglutide was an experimental drug for type 2 diabetes. The sales explosion only happened a few years later when it started being prescribed for weight loss.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#154

Post by dghlsakjg »

wasabi991011 wrote: post #113
dghlsakjg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't figure into the pricing strategy or giving away patent protection in Canada in 2018 as far as I can tell? Compounding isn't allowed in Canada, currently, so I assume you are talking about the US? Compounding Ozempic in the US wasn't a thing in 2018 when this patent was released in Canada, so not sure what one has to do with the other. What are you getting at in reference to the argument that the patent w…

> Compounding isn't allowed in Canada I'm not sure why you think that, compounding is allowed, I live right be a compounding pharmacy. And confirmed it's legal through google.

I should be more specific. Compounding Ozempic isn't allowed since it is not considered to be a shortage anymore by Health Canada.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#155

Post by seszett »

delfinom wrote: post #108
CamperBob2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can import from UAE without paying any duties or fees?

I mean that entire region has bought the president, even got themselves a military base being built on American land now too. So why not.

> got themselves a military base being built on American land now too

As a European I'm as critical of the US government as can be and their president has definitely been bought, but there are already several countries that have some training facilities and military personnel in the US.

Calling it a foreign military base is really unnecessarily hyperbolic. And given the amount of military bases that the US have on foreign land, the outrage also seems a bit misplaced.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#156

Post by vl »

valicord wrote: post #60
toomuchtodo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45638316

That's mainly for visitors. If you're a US resident, you can't just buy medicines abroad, unless of course we are talking about the "they won’t get caught" scenario.

Of course you can buy medicine abroad and legally bring 90 day doses.

More over, you can order and ship medicine, including ozempic and zepbound, using American prescription from Canadian online pharmacies. For some drugs it’s quite cheaper than paying American prices.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#157

Post by vl »

glp1guide wrote: post #35

Not only that, there is a legitimate raft of companies lining up to make generics. There’s one wrinkle though, legally importing prescription drugs from Canada isn’t really allowed in the US/UK AFAIK. HIMS is probably feverishly figuring out how to do that right now. Shameless plug: https://glp1guide.substack.com/p/another-glp1-generic-launch... Also somewhat separately, injectable GLP1s are about to be upstaged by o…

Nonsense.

You can use US prescription at online Canadian pharmacy and legally ship to US. This is how a lot of people save on drugs.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#158

Post by foxglacier »

jzebedee wrote: post #4

> Prof. Michael Hoffman from Toronto put me on to the Canadian Patent Database, where you can find that Novo did file a patent there for semaglutide. . .but the last time they paid the annual maintenance fee on it was 2018! > You can even find a letter where their lawyers send a refund request for the 2017 maintenance fee ($250) because Novo apparently wanted some more time to see if they wanted to pay it. > On the s…

Don't be so quick to assume it was a failure not intentional. One of the comments in the article suggests it could have been to avoid PMPRB which is price control for patented drugs.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#159

Post by chvid »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #14
jzebedee wrote: post #4

> Prof. Michael Hoffman from Toronto put me on to the Canadian Patent Database, where you can find that Novo did file a patent there for semaglutide. . .but the last time they paid the annual maintenance fee on it was 2018! > You can even find a letter where their lawyers send a refund request for the 2017 maintenance fee ($250) because Novo apparently wanted some more time to see if they wanted to pay it. > On the s…

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…

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

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#160

Post by vintermann »

nijuashi wrote: post #131
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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