There’s something buzzing in the pharmaceutical industry’s pot, and it’s not just the caffeine in our favorite bodega brew. On the crispy morning of December 3, 2024, Bristol Myers Squibb, a heavyweight in the drug-discovering arena, decided to dance with a young, dashing startup, AI Proteins, in what may feel like a cacophony of test tubes and silicon chips. The startup, just three years young, comes with some serious techie credentials. Chris Bahl, PhD, its founder, waxes lyrical about using AI to design cozy, little proteins with just the right drug-like vibe. He says, “AI, synthetic biology, and lab automation are our thang.” Check the full story about the collaboration over at Fierce Biotech.
A Legal Tango
While they’re busy in the lab, the law folks are wrestling with inventorship beef. Back in February 2024, before we even cracked open our Valentine chocolates, the USPTO dropped some wisdom via new guidelines on AI-assisted inventions. This follows hot on the heels of President Biden’s executive order on AI from October 2023, pushing for safe and sound development. The regalo opinions brewing from this masterpiece of bureaucratic brilliance? An idea that an invention is up for grabs by humans only, no AI claim-jumpers allowed. Trust in the firm hand of the USPTO guidance.
Court Cases & Conundrums
Let’s rewind to the 2022 decision in Thaler v. Vidal, a court case many in tech never miss. The Federal Circuit stated, plain as a Staten Island accent: AI systems ain’t inventors. Still, patent stakeholders, particularly those dabbling in biologics, will want to glue their eyes to these matters. Because if AI-designed biologics—a curious love child of tech and chemistry—do start storming the market, future legal battles might just revolve around who really deserves the inventor badge. A glance at AI’s growing role can be sneaked at Nature Medicine and take a look at AbbVie’s approach to AI’s pharma disruption.
Dodging Patent Pitfalls
Biologic innovators are told there’s wisdom in caution. Imagine leaving your patent portfolio soft as a three-day-old bagel. While cooking up new concoctions, firms should ensure that humans are credited with significant contributions. No need to play roulette with your intellectual property, folks. Biosimilar makers, on the other hand, should remain vigilant. Be on the lookout for the legal minefield that may come with AI-designed biologics, particularly in BPCIA or other patent litigation slots. Find a deeper dive on this in Bloomberg Law.
Takeaway Tidbits
- Inventorship Issues: Humans must have a hand on the project, significant enough to be labeled as inventors.
- Future Court Rumbles: Keep those tabs open on recent court decisions that outline AI’s role in invention.
- Biologic Innovation: Biotech firms should ensure that patent portfolios are ironclad against potential AI inventorship challenges.
The big apple and AI seem to be flavor buddies, yet the path ahead holds delightful skirmishes between coding lines and legal lines. Keep watching, and maybe someday soon, your aspirin will come with a little AI-designed friend’s stamp of ingenuity.
