1

In reference to the patent: US20100273821

The pharmacological effects on each of the opioid receptors is different and the potency of available opioid agents at each of these receptors and indeed whether they have agonist or antagonist properties at each, is highly variable. It is therefore not possible to generalise beyond the agents for which the inventors have provided experimental data. Which is none. And in any case, the generality is all there in the Zagon patent, with this applicant's mentioning absence of moxifloxacin appearing to be an arbitrary attempt to enable patentability.

Therefore as far as I can see the examiner should reject all of the claims, unless I am missing something ?

  • I'm reopening this, but you should be aware that questions here shouldn't generally be contingent on technical or field expertise. Claim interpretation is on-topic, and hopefully someone will be able to shed some light on the boundaries for patentability. So I think it fits within our scope, but I just wanted to give that heads up. – Matthew Haugen Feb 15 '15 at 21:25
1

Patent was granted by USPTO. prima facie it seems that it is related to inventive method on use of naltrexone or naloxone. Not the earlier application claims.

Claim 1 :- A method of treating dry eye in a subject in need of such treatment, comprising topical administration to the eye or eyes of said subject a composition comprising an effective amount of naltrexone, naloxone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.