Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC

CHRISTOPHER M. HOLMAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2024.29333.cip

2024-02-21

Biotechnology Law Report

Abstract:Biotechnology Law Report, Volume 43, Issue 1, Page 47-50, February 2024.

biotechnology & applied microbiology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Actelion Pharms. LTD v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.

CHRISTOPHER M. HOLMAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2024.29332.cip

2024-02-21

Biotechnology Law Report

Abstract:Biotechnology Law Report, Volume 43, Issue 1, Page 42-46, February 2024.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
GlaxoSmithKline II and Other Recent Developments in Induced and Contributory Patent Infringement

CHRISTOPHER M. HOLMAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2024.29335.cmh

2024-02-21

Biotechnology Law Report

Abstract:Biotechnology Law Report, Volume 43, Issue 1, Page 3-26, February 2024.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
H. Lundbeck A/S v. Lupin Ltd.

CHRISTOPHER M. HOLMAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2024.29334.cip

2024-02-21

Biotechnology Law Report

Abstract:Biotechnology Law Report, Volume 43, Issue 1, Page 51-58, February 2024.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
Biotechnology Patent Law Top Ten of 2022: Inducement, Clear Error, and Interferences Galore

Kevin E. Noonan,Andrew W. Torrance

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25172/smustlr.26.2.5

2023-01-01

Abstract:Five-year anniversaries are symbolized by a product of natural biotechnology: wood. This article marks the wood anniversary of the “Top Ten Biotechnology Patent Cases” series that began in 2018. Imagining the world in 2018 is challenging, in part because it was, indeed, a different world. There had not been a major pandemic in one hundred years. Inflation was low. The economy hummed along. No individual war appeared to threaten more than regional stability. O tempora, o mores! The year 2022 was quite different. SARS-CoV-2 continued to stalk the land, having had a monumentally mortiferous effect for several years. High inflation was rampant. The economy was still recovering from one of the deepest declines in history, with imbalances across many sectors. Moreover, eastern Europe had let slip the dogs of war, threatening peace worldwide. Biotechnology also has seen changes of significant magnitude. Venture capital investment in biotechnology was small compared to what it is now. Efficient genome editing was restricted to first-generation CRISPR-Cas9 systems, while now it may be accomplished using more powerful and accurate methods, like base editing and prime editing (the latter offering hope for treatment in almost 90% of genetic diseases). Courts had declared that diagnostic methods did not constitute patentable subject matter, which remains the case today, although clever draftswomen continue their efforts to obtain claims protecting such methods to some extent. Over the course of 2022, courts decided a generous selection of cases covering a wide variety of biotechnology patent law issues. These cases ran the gamut, from patent doctrines concerning satisfaction of the written description requirement for antibody claims to mechanisms for augmenting patent terms using either Patent Term Extension, or Patent Term Adjustment, or both. This article has chosen ten of the most important, though, as is the case every year, our choice of only ten was difficult, and, by necessity, left worthy cases on the cutting room floor.
FDA Regulation: An Answer to the Questions of Human Cloning and Germline Gene Therapy

Christine Willgoos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0098858800011175

2001-01-01

Abstract:The possibility of cloning human beings, although widely contemplated for several decades, became scientifically feasible in 1997 when the first mammal created through cloning procedures was born. Although the scientists who created the sheep named Dolly did not intend to apply cloning techniques to human beings, news media worldwide began predicting such an application. In the United States, public and political outcry against the possibility of cloning human beings was loud and swift. Almost immediately, President Clinton announced a ban on federal funding of cloning research and requested the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to prepare a report evaluating the technology and making recommendations concerning its use. Several bills were introduced in Congress which prohibited federal funding and/or banned cloning in both the public and private sectors. As of yet, none of these bills have been passed.
Key Expert Stakeholder Perceptions of the Law of Genomics: Identified Problems and Potential Solutions

Fook Yee Cheung,Lauren Clatch,Susan M Wolf,Ellen Wright Clayton,Frances Lawrenz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520916997

Abstract:The law applicable to genomics in the United States is currently in transition and under debate. The rapid evolution of the science, burgeoning clinical research, and growing clinical application pose serious challenges for federal and state law. Although there has been some empirical work in this area, this is the first paper to survey and interview key scientific and legal stakeholders in the field of genomics to help ground identification of the most important legal problems that must be solved to successfully integrate genomics into clinical care. The respondents in this study identified a wide range of interconnected issues, focusing specifically on the need for clear guidelines about how to use these data, fear of liability for those who use these data, and the need to protect patients from use of this information particularly by insurers, while endorsing data sharing. Developing legal strategies to support appropriate use of genomics now and in the future clearly will require making trade-offs, taking into account the full complexity of this legal ecosystem.
Biospecimen research and the law

Timothy D Dye,Jerry A Menikoff,Timothy D. Dye,Jerry A. Menikoff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ads3190

IF: 56.9

2024-08-18

Science

Abstract:In the well-known case of Henrietta Lacks, cells from her tumor were taken without consent and used more than 70 years ago to create the first immortal human cell line ("HeLa" cells). That event led to many scientific breakthroughs and to the debate about the ethics of consent and requirements for compensation. May 2024 saw two decisions by US federal courts—one related to Lacks—that could narrow the scope of research allowed on tissues obtained without consent and on nonidentified tissues, with implications for biomedicine.

multidisciplinary sciences
Report on Webinar Series Cell and Gene Therapy: From Concept to Clinical Use

Christopher F. van der Walle,Christine Dufès,Arpan S. Desai,Julie Kerby,Joanne Broadhead,Alice Tam,Zahra Rattray

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14010168

IF: 6.525

2022-01-11

Pharmaceutics

Abstract:With the launch of the UK Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Focus Group in late 2020, a webinar series reviewing the current and emerging trends in cell and gene therapy was held virtually in May 2021. This webinar series was timely given the recent withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the global COVID-19 pandemic impacting all sectors of the pharmaceutical sciences research landscape globally and in the UK. Delegates from the academic, industry, regulatory and NHS sectors attended the session where challenges and opportunities in the development and clinical implementation of cell and gene therapies were discussed. Globally, the cell and gene therapy market has reached a value of 4.3 billion dollars in 2020, having increased at a compound annual growth rate of 25.5% since 2015. This webinar series captured all the major developments in this rapidly evolving area and highlighted emerging concepts warranting cross-sector efforts from across the community in the future.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Drafting eligible biotech and immunotherapy claims

Shyh-Jen Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2019.1608746

Abstract:The very recent US Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit (CAFC) cases have dramatically changed the standard of patent eligibility. Several groundbreaking innovations were thus determined to be patent ineligible. The patent ineligibility would impact on the innovation s of the field of biomarkers, diagnostic methods and personalize cancer immunotherapy. To solve the thorny problem of eligibility, this study retrospectively analyzes all CAFC related cases and presents a flow chart determining patent eligibility based on the courts' decisions. Our analysis indicates the best way to avoid eligible rejection or invalidation is that an invention cannot fall within the categories of natural law, natural phenomenon or abstract idea. Thus, claiming non-natural cDNA, involving a step to grow a transformed cell or adding a means clause in a method claim would be some possible solutions. Moreover, based on the flow chart, even though a claim with substantive limitation but not well-understood, routine or conventional activities would be patent eligible; no one has successfully made the argument in the CAFC so far. We believe that this flow chart can serve as a set of guidelines for determining patent eligibility.
Real-World Efficacy and Safety Outcomes for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) Aggressive B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (aBNHL) Treated with Commercial Tisagenlecleucel: Update from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) Registry

Daniel J Landsburg,Matthew J. Frigault,Zhen-Huan Hu,Samantha Jaglowski,Frederick L. Locke,Christine Ho,Miguel-Angel Perales,Caron Jacobson,Brian T. Hill,Stephen Ronan Foley,Peter A. Riedell,Ranjan Tiwari,Aisha Masood,Stephen Lim,Marta Majdan,Marcelo C Pasquini,Cameron J. Turtle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-146397

IF: 20.3

2021-11-05

Blood

Abstract:Abstract Background: Tisagenlecleucel is an autologous CD19-directed T-cell immunotherapy that provides high rates of durable response, with a manageable safety profile, in adult patients with R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). An overall response (OR) rate of 53% and progression-free survival (PFS) rate of ~35% at 12 months were observed in the pivotal Phase II trial, JULIET (NCT02445248) [Jaeger et al. Blood 2020; Schuster et al. NEJM 2019]. Early data from the CIBMTR registry indicate similar efficacy and a more favorable safety profile in the commercial setting [Pasquini et al. Blood Adv 2020]. Outcomes are reported here for a larger group of patients with aBNHL who received commercial tisagenlecleucel with longer follow-up, including those considered ineligible for JULIET. Methods: This non-interventional prospective study used data from the CIBMTR registry and included adult patients with R/R aBNHL in the USA and Canada. Patients who received commercial tisagenlecleucel after August 30, 2017 were included, stratified by eligibility for JULIET based on patient characteristics reported in the registry (eg disease histology, treatment history, ECOG performance status, organ function). The safety and efficacy sets included those with completed Day 100 safety and efficacy forms, respectively, with ≥6 months' follow-up. Patients who died or discontinued prior to data cut-off were also included. Center-reported efficacy outcomes included OR rate, complete response (CR) rate, partial response (PR) rate, PFS, duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Adverse events of interest, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), were reported using the ASTCT grading criteria. Results: As of October 30, 2020, data were collected from 405 patients who received commercial tisagenlecleucel ≥6 months prior to data cut-off, with 365 patients included in the safety set and 362 in the efficacy set. In the full cohort, DLBCL was the histologic subtype in 79.5% of patients. Median time from receipt of leukapheresis product at the manufacturing site to shipment was 27 days (interquartile range: 25-33). At infusion, median age was 66 years, with 54.3% of patients aged ≥65 years. Patients had received a median of 3 (range: 0-11) prior lines of therapy and 34.3% had primary refractory disease. ECOG performance status at screening was <2 in 80.2% of patients. Based on the above criteria, 263 patients (64.9%) were considered JULIET-ineligible. In the efficacy set (median follow-up 15.8 months), the OR rate was 59.4% (95% CI 54.1-64.5), and 39.5% achieved a CR. Six patients with a 100-day best overall response of PR converted to CR. The 12-month PFS rate was 33.5% (95% CI 27.9-39.3), 12-month OS rate was 60.3% (95% CI 53.7-66.2) and median DOR was not reached. Overall, efficacy outcomes in the JULIET-ineligible subgroup reflected those of the wider study population (Table 1). In the safety set, any-grade CRS within 100 days of infusion was observed in 47.7% (n=174) patients, with Grade ≥3 CRS in 4.9% (n=18). Median time to CRS onset from infusion was 4 days (range: 1-15) and median duration was 5 days (95% CI 5-6). Any-grade ICANS within 100 days of infusion was observed in 17.0% (n=62) patients, with Grade ≥3 in 6.0% (n=22). Median time to onset from infusion was 7 days (range: 1-33) and median duration was 9 days (95% CI 6-12). The safety profile of tisagenlecleucel in the JULIET-ineligible subgroup reflected that of the wider study population (Table 1). Conclusions: Updated registry data confirm that aBNHL patients receiving commercial tisagenlecleucel experience similar efficacy outcomes and more favorable safety outcomes than those enrolled in JULIET, even though approximately two-thirds of patients did not appear to meet JULIET eligibility criteria. The CIBMTR registry remains an important source of safety and efficacy outcomes for a large population of aBNHL patients treated with commercial tisagenlecleucel. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Landsburg: Curis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADCT: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: DSMB member; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Frigault: BMS: Consultancy; Editas: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Iovance: Consultancy; Arcellx: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Jaglowski: Takeda: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Locke: Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Cowen: Consultancy; EcoR1: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy. Perales: Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; NexImmune: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; Omeros: Honoraria; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Jacobson: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Axis: Speakers Bureau; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau. Hill: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Foley: Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Riedell: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Calibr: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy. Tiwari: Novartis Healthcare private limited: Current Employment. Masood: Novartis: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Lim: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Current Employment. Majdan: Novartis: Current Employment. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Turtle: Myeloid Therapeutics: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; T-CURX: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Century Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Arsenal Bio: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eureka Therapeutics: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Caribou Biosciences: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Precision Biosciences: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics/BMS: Patents & Royalties: Right to receive royalties from Fred Hutch for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics, Research Funding; Asher Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; PACT Pharma: Consultancy; TCR2 Therapeutics: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy.

hematology
Reproductive and therapeutic cloning, germline therapy, and purchase of gametes and embryos: comments on Canadian legislation governing reproduction technologies

L Bernier,D Grégoire

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2002.002170

2004-12-01

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract:In Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act received royal assent on 29 March 2004. The approach proposed by the federal government responds to Canadians' strong desire for an enforceable legislative framework in the field of reproduction technologies through criminal law. As a result of the widening gap between the rapid pace of technological change and governing legislation, a distinct need was perceived to create a regulatory framework to guide decisions regarding reproductive technologies. In this article the three main topics covered in the new legislation are commented on: cloning, germline therapy, and purchase of gametes and embryos. Some important issues also covered in the new legislation, such as privacy and access to information, data protection, identity of donors, and inspection, will not be addressed.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Regulatory concerns in human gene therapy

S L Epstein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.1991.2.3-243

Abstract:Gene therapy in humans is now being undertaken in an investigational setting. Such therapy involves the administration of biological products to human patients. A document entitled, "Points to Consider in Human Somatic Cell Therapy and Gene Therapy" has been prepared by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is published elsewhere in this issue. This paper provides explanatory material about the CBER regulatory process and the scientific and regulatory basis for the requests for data in that document.
Pharmacological Profile and Clinical Outcomes of KTE-X19 By Prior Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (BTKi) Exposure or Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) Morphology in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) MCL in the ZUMA-2 Trial

Michael Wang,John M. Rossi,Javier Munoz,Andre H. Goy,Frederick L. Locke,Patrick M. Reagan,Caron A. Jacobson,Brian T. Hill,Houston Holmes,Samantha Jaglowski,Weimin Peng,Lianqing Zheng,Xiang Fang,Allen Xue,Ioana Kloos,Adrian Bot

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2020-136831

IF: 20.3

2020-11-05

Blood

Abstract:Background: Patient (pts) with MCL who progress after BTKi therapy have a median overall survival of only 5.8 mo with salvage therapies (Martin, et al. Blood 2016). KTE-X19 is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy being evaluated in the Phase 2, registrational, multicenter ZUMA-2 study of pts with R/R MCL after 1 - 5 prior therapies, including a BTKi. In the primary analysis of ZUMA-2 (N = 60), the objective response rate (ORR) with KTE-X19 treatment (median follow-up 12.3 mo) was 93% (67% complete response [CR] rate; Wang et al. N Engl J Med 2020). Here, we describe a comparative analysis of KTE-X19 pharmacology profile and outcomes by MCL morphology and prior BTKi exposure (ibrutinib [Ibr] and/or acalabrutinib [Acala]), accompanied by basic product attribute characterization. Methods: Eligible pts with R/R MCL underwent leukapheresis and conditioning chemotherapy followed by a single infusion of 2 × 106 anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg (Wang et al. N Engl J Med 2020). Product attributes, CAR T cell levels in blood, and cytokine levels in serum were assessed using methods previously described (Locke et al. Mol Ther 2017). Clinical outcomes are reported in the 60 efficacy-evaluable pts; product attributes and pharmacology data are reported for all 68 treated pts (data cutoff 7/24/2019). Additional pharmacodynamic and cytogenetic data were generated and will be presented. Results: At baseline, 40 pts (59%) had classical MCL, 17 (25%) had blastoid MCL, and 4 (6%) had pleomorphic MCL as assessed by investigator. Before study entry, 52 pts (76%) had prior Ibr, 10 (15%) had prior Acala, and 6 (9%) had both; 88% had BTKi-refractory disease. In manufactured KTE-X19 products, median (range) CD4/CD8 ratios for pts with classical, blastoid, or pleomorphic MCL were 0.7 (0.04 - 2.8), 0.6 (0.2 - 1.1), or 0.7 (0.5 - 2.0), respectively. Product T cell phenotypes (median [range]) included less differentiated CCR7+ T cells (classical 40.0% [2.6 - 88.8]; blastoid 35.3% [14.3 - 73.4]; pleomorphic 80.8% [57.3 - 88.8]) and effector + effector memory CCR7- T cells (classical 59.9% [11.1 - 97.4]; blastoid 64.8% [26.6 - 85.7]; pleomorphic 19.2% [11.1 - 42.7]). Median (range) interferon (IFN)-γ levels by coculture in pts with classical, blastoid, or pleomorphic MCL were 6309.5 pg/mL (424.0 - 20,000), 6510.0 pg/mL (2709.0 - 18,000), or 7687.5 pg/mL (424.0 - 12,000), respectively. In pts with classical, blastoid, or pleomorphic MCL, median (range) peak CAR T cell levels were 77.6 cells/μL (0.2 - 2241.6), 35.0 cells/μL (0.2 - 2589.5), or 144.9 cells/μL (39.2 - 431.3), respectively. ORR/CR rates were 93%/65% in pts with classical MCL, 88%/53% in those with blastoid MCL, and 100%/75% in those with pleomorphic MCL. The 12-mo survival rates in pts with classical, blastoid, or pleomorphic MCL were 86.7%, 67.9%, or 100%, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events occurred in 15% and 38% of pts with classical MCL, 6% and 8% of pts with blastoid MCL, and 25% and 50% of pts with pleomorphic MCL. For pts who received prior Ibr, Acala, or both, median CD4/CD8 ratios in manufactured KTE-X19 products were 0.7 (range, 0.04 - 3.7), 0.6 (range, 0.3 - 1.2), or 1.0 (range, 0.7 - 1.9), respectively. Product T cell phenotypes (median [range]) included less differentiated CCR7+ T cells (Ibr 39.3% [2.6 - 86.4]; Acala 42.7% [16.3 - 88.8]; both 49.5% [14.3 - 83.0]) and CCR7- effector + effector memory T cells (Ibr 60.6 [13.7 - 97.4]; Acala 57.3% [11.1 - 83.8]; both 50.6% [17.0 - 85.7]). Median (range) levels of IFN-γ by coculture in pts with prior Ibr, Acala, or both was 6496.0 pg/mL (424.0 - 20,000), 5972.5 pg/mL (2502.0 - 18,000), or 7985.5 pg/mL (2709.0 - 12,000), respectively. For pts with prior Ibr, Acala, or both, median (range) peak CAR T cell levels were 95.9 (0.4 - 2589.5), 13.7 (0.2 - 182.4), or 115.9 (17.2 - 1753.6), respectively. ORR/CR rates were 94%/65% in pts with prior Ibr, 80%/40% in pts with prior Acala, and 100%/100% in pts with both BTKis. The 12-mo survival rates in pts with prior Ibr, Acala, or both were 81%, 80%, or 100%, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 CRS and neurologic events occurred in 17% and 31% of pts with prior Ibr, 10% and 10% of pts with Acala, and 0 and 67% of pts with both BTKis. Conclusions: All subgroups defined by MCL morphology or prior BTKi drew clinical benefit from KTE-X19 treatment, with lower post-treatment CAR T cell levels in pts with blastoid morphology or previously treated with Acala alone. Disclosures Wang: OMI: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; MoreHealth: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding; Nobel Insights: Consultancy; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Pulse Biosciences: Consultancy; Lu Daopei Medical Group: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Oncternal: Consultancy, Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; InnoCare: Consultancy; OncLive: Honoraria; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Beijing Medical Award Foundation: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioInvent: Research Funding. Rossi:Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Munoz:Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Acrotech/Aurobindo: Speakers Bureau; Innovent: Consultancy; Fosunkite: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Goy:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment; Infinity Verastem: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; COTA: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: leadership role; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; PracticeUpdate Oncology: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding; RCCA/OMI: Current Employment; Hackensack UMC and University of Nebraska: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; MD Anderson: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; CALBG: Research Funding. Locke:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Calibr: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Other: Consultancy with grant options; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Wugen: Consultancy. Reagan:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Jacobson:Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; AXIS: Speakers Bureau; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Hill:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Holmes:Texas Oncology PA: Current Employment; Gilead/Kite, Celgene/Juno, Rigel, Karyopharm, Janssen, Dova: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite, Novartis, Autolus, Celgene/Juno/bluebird, Genentech, Inc., Rigel, Janssen, Unum, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Incyte, Verastem: Research Funding; Kite, Karyopharm, Seattle Genetics, Rigel, Dova: Speakers Bureau. Jaglowski:CRISPR: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Peng:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zheng:Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Fang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Xue:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current equity holder in private company. Kloos:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bot:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Travel support .

hematology
The law of genetic privacy: applications, implications, and limitations

Ellen Wright Clayton,Barbara J Evans,James W Hazel,Mark A Rothstein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz007

IF: 3.4

2019-05-14

Journal of Law and the Biosciences

Abstract:Abstract Recent advances in technology have significantly improved the accuracy of genetic testing and analysis, and substantially reduced its cost, resulting in a dramatic increase in the amount of genetic information generated, analysed, shared, and stored by diverse individuals and entities. Given the diversity of actors and their interests, coupled with the wide variety of ways genetic data are held, it has been difficult to develop broadly applicable legal principles for genetic privacy. This article examines the current landscape of genetic privacy to identify the roles that the law does or should play, with a focus on federal statutes and regulations, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). After considering the many contexts in which issues of genetic privacy arise, the article concludes that few, if any, applicable legal doctrines or enactments provide adequate protection or meaningful control to individuals over disclosures that may affect them. The article describes why it may be time to shift attention from attempting to control access to genetic information to considering the more challenging question of how these data can be used and under what conditions, explicitly addressing trade-offs between individual and social goods in numerous applications.

ethics,law,medicine, legal,medical ethics
Abstract A028: Subclonal lineage recording in glioblastoma using CRISPR base editing

Abigail C. Marshall,Aaron McKenna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.brain23-a028

IF: 11.2

2024-03-05

Cancer Research

Abstract:Novel lineage tracing approaches are needed to undercover lineage relationships between diverse cells in complex tumors such as glioblastoma (GBM). Intratumoral heterogeneity in GBM drives treatment resistance and recurrence. This intratumoral heterogeneity is reflected by multiple cellular states seen within tumors and across patients. Unfortunately, little is known about their lineage relationships and shared origins. Here we've developed a novel lineage tracing technology to track the clonal and subclonal evolution in patient-derived GBM models. Our adenine base editor lineage tracing (ABELT) system uses a Cas9 adenine base editor (ABE) to induce heritable single-nucleotide changes in the 3' untranslated region of endogenous transcripts. These heritable marks distinguish individual clonal populations and can be used to trace the relationship between progeny within each clone. We demonstrate our system's in vitro lineage tracing capacity and show that the ABELT system faithfully records lineage, which is recoverable with unmodified single-cell RNA sequencing approaches. We then track the relationships between evolving cellular states across multiple divisions in an evolving GBM model. Our ABELT technology enables the rapid engineering and lineage tracing of cancer models incompatible with previous approaches. This novel approach will enable our group and others to explore GBM intratumoral heterogeneity with subclonal resolution to determine transcriptional plasticity that ultimately leads to treatment resistance. Citation Format: Abigail C. Marshall, Aaron McKenna. Subclonal lineage recording in glioblastoma using CRISPR base editing [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Brain Cancer; 2023 Oct 19-22; Minneapolis, Minnesota. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(5 Suppl_1) nr A028.

oncology
Why are Higher CD34+ Cell Doses Associated with Improved Outcomes among Pediatric Patients Undergoing Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant for Central Nervous System Tumors – But Not for High-Risk Neuroblastoma?

Tristan E. Knight,Larisa Broglie,Akshay Sharma,Muna Qayed,Gregory A. Yanik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08880018.2024.2420924

2024-11-07

Pediatric Hematology and Oncology

Abstract:Tristan E. Knight: Nothing to disclose. Larisa Broglie: Nothing to disclose. Akshay Sharma: Consulting for Spotlight Therapeutics, Medexus Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Sangamo Therapeutics, Editas Medicine, and BioLineRx; research funding from CRISPR Therapeutics. Clinical Trial site-PI: CRISPR Therapeutics, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Magenta Therapeutics, Beam Therapeutics. Honoraria: Vindico Medical Education. Muna Qayed: honoraria from Vertex and Novartis. Kirk R. Schultz: Nothing to disclose. Greg A. Yanik: Nothing to disclose. CIBMTR supports the accessibility of research in accord with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Data Sharing Policy and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Public Access and Data Sharing Policy. The CIBMTR only releases de-identified datasets that comply with all relevant global regulations regarding privacy and confidentiality. CIBMTR is supported primarily by the Public Health Service U24CA076518 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); 75R60222C00011 from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and N00014-23-1-2057 and N00014-24-1-2057 from the Office of Naval Research. Additional federal support is provided by U01AI184132 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); and UG1HL174426 from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Support is also provided by the Medical College of Wisconsin, NMDP, Gateway for Cancer Research, Pediatric Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Consortium and from the following commercial entities: AbbVie; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation; ADC Therapeutics; Adienne SA; Alexion; AlloVir, Inc.; Amgen, Inc.; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca; Atara Biotherapeutics; Autolus Limited; BeiGene; BioLineRX; Blue Spark Technologies; bluebird bio, inc.; Blueprint Medicines; Bristol Myers Squibb Co.; CareDx Inc.; CSL Behring; CytoSen Therapeutics, Inc.; DKMS; Editas Medicine; Elevance Health; Eurofins Viracor, DBA Eurofins Transplant Diagnostics; Gamida-Cell, Ltd.; Gift of Life Biologics; Gift of Life Marrow Registry; HistoGenetics; Incyte Corporation; Iovance; Janssen Research & Development, LLC; Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Jasper Therapeutics; Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Karius; Kashi Clinical Laboratories; Kiadis Pharma; Kite, a Gilead Company; Kyowa Kirin; Labcorp; Legend Biotech; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; Med Learning Group; Medac GmbH; Merck & Co.; Millennium, the Takeda Oncology Co.; Miller Pharmacal Group, Inc.; Miltenyi Biomedicine; Miltenyi Biotec, Inc.; MorphoSys; MSA-EDITLife; Neovii Pharmaceuticals AG; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Omeros Corporation; Orca Biosystems, Inc.; OriGen BioMedical; Ossium Health, Inc.; Pfizer, Inc.; Pharmacyclics, LLC, An AbbVie Company; PPD Development, LP; Registry Partners; Rigel Pharmaceuticals; Sanofi; Sarah Cannon; Seagen Inc.; Sobi, Inc.; Stemcell Technologies; Stemline Technologies; STEMSOFT; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; Talaris Therapeutics; Vertex Pharmaceuticals; Vor Biopharma Inc.; Xenikos BV.

oncology,pediatrics,hematology
Patent Cliffs in the Era of Complex Therapies and Biologics

Marco T Sabatini,Miguel Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-020-00348-7

Abstract:Introduction: The rise of new product classes such as biologics and complex molecules over the past two decades have brought to light some of the unique market dynamics that such products face. While we have seen and experienced the inception, growth and expansion phase of such products, the ongoing incumbent decline due to loss of exclusivity (LoE) is yet to be fully experienced. This raises the question of how one may go about modelling such a scenario given that forecasting the expected erosion curves accurately can ensure full brand value is retained for pharmaceutical companies. Objectives: This research looks to analyze the 'patent cliff' across varying product classes and, in doing so, understand the drivers behind the different market dynamics post-LoE for traditional molecules, complex molecules and biologics. Methods: An extensive list of molecules across various therapeutic areas succumbing to loss of patent exclusivity between 2014 and 2019 were categorized according to product class, and sales data were analyzed to reveal trends across different product classes. Results: The analysis of sales behavior of these compounds revealed distinct tendencies in terms of sales erosion across the various product classes. The largest determinant for the behaviour of a prescription drug post-LoE is the degree of generic competition, which in turn is primarily influenced by the barriers to entry. This research details some of the key challenges relating to regulatory, legal and manufacturing aspects that distinguish biologics and complex molecules from traditional small molecules and ultimately lead to different market dynamics post-LoE. Conclusions: Unlike for traditional small-molecule generics where originator manufacturers have limited options to fend off generics, the greater degree of 'brand-brand' competitive dynamics seen in the biologics and complex generics space allows manufacturers of originators to protect market share. This analysis represents a meaningful addition to understanding LoE across various class types and thus highlights the importance of strategic decision making that pharmaceutical companies need to take at LoE.
Biotechnology and law: biotechnology patents. Special considerations on the inventions with human material

Jürgen Simon

Abstract:The EC and the US differ considerably in their ruling on the patentability of biotechnological inventions apart from some exceptions. The most extreme positions in either direction with regard to the individual biotechnological inventions mark the margins of the scope which the WTO members may use for the ratification of Art. 27 TRIPS. Rulings which are not in accordance with Art. 27 TRIPS remain without consideration. In the most important point both WTO member agree: Human beings are not patentable. Other regulations could be considered, but one may assume that no member of the WTO intends to make use thereof. Thus the scope involving this option is only a theoretical one. The situation is different when it comes to the components of the human body. These may, provided they are produced artificially or are separated from the human body, be patented. According to the regulations in the US, this applies to all components with the exception of totipotent stem cells. They may be exempted from patenting entirely or their patenting is linked to far reaching conditions. As an example should be named here the regulation of the EPA for patenting gene sequences. The scope of this area is, thus, very great and allows for many options of applying the regulations of Art. 27 TRIPS. With regard to patenting procedures for cloning human beings, the scope is unlimited. These procedures may either be completely excluded from patenting as in the EC or may be considered patentable independent of their purpose as in the US. The same applies to procedures for gathering human stem cells in the US. Exempting procedures with regard to human genes or DNA sequences are, however, only possible in special cases, as for example in the EC with regard to procedures for altering the genetic identity of the germline of human beings. However, the interpretation of general patentability preconditions allows to influence the patenting of such procedures. This means, though, that the scope for interpretation is only a small one in this area.
Genome research: fulfilling the public's expectations for knowledge and commercialization

R G Adler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1502557

IF: 56.9

1992-08-14

Science

Abstract:This article provides a historical perspective for the patenting of gene sequences and describes the fundamentals and evolution of patent law. It summarizes federal technology transfer law and policy and assesses the impacts of patenting on academic research. The patentability of gene sequences is then considered along with potential impacts that published sequence data may have on obtaining patent protection for downstream products. Industry's position on gene patenting is summarized and perspectives from the emerging public record on these issues are presented. The article discussing points at which the filing of patent applications and the licensing of patents may be appropriate. It concludes that technology transfer policies for genome research must be adopted carefully so that they remain viable in a time of rapid technological change.
Multicenter, Open-Label, Phase 3 Study of Tabelecleucel for Solid Organ or Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients with Epstein-Barr Virus-Driven Post Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disease after Failure of Rituximab or Rituximab and Chemotherapy (ALLELE)

Susan Prockop,Kris Michael Mahadeo,Amer Beitinjaneh,Sylvain Choquet,Patrick Stiff,Ran Reshef,Gowri Satyanarayana,Saurabh Dahiya,Hema Parmar,Wei Ye,Laurence Gamelin,Rajani Dinavahi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-147274

IF: 20.3

2021-11-05

Blood

Abstract:Abstract Background: Tabelecleucel is an investigational, off-the-shelf, allogeneic Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-specific T-cell immunotherapy being studied in patients (pts) with serious EBV-driven diseases, including post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV + PTLD). The median overall survival (OS) after treatment failure of rituximab is short at ~1.7 months in EBV + PTLD following hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) (Socié EBMT 2020) and ~3 months in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with EBV + PTLD whose disease relapsed after rituximab and who did not respond to or did not receive chemotherapy (CT) (Zimmerman EHA 2019). These poor outcomes demonstrate an urgent unmet need for effective therapies in this ultra-rare serious disease. Promising outcomes have previously been demonstrated (Prockop JCI 2020). Additionally, we have shown clinical benefit with a >60% objective response rate (ORR) and >80% estimated 2-year OS rates (Prockop EBMT 2021, Prockop ATC 2021) in pts with EBV + PTLD, irrespective of pts achieving a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to tabelecleucel. Safety data have been assessed in >150 pts with EBV + PTLD treated with tabelecleucel with tumor flare reaction (TFR) as the only identified risk. Here, for the first time, we report interim efficacy and safety results from the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial ALLELE (NCT03394365) - a multicenter, open-label study of tabelecleucel after failure of rituximab ± CT in pts with EBV + PTLD following SOT or HCT. Methods: ALLELE is evaluating the clinical benefit of tabelecleucel in two cohorts: (1) pts with EBV + PTLD following SOT after failure of rituximab ± CT (n=33), and (2) pts with EBV + PTLD following HCT after failure of rituximab monotherapy (n=33). Tabelecleucel is administered at a dose of 2 x 10 6 cells/kg on days 1, 8, and 15, followed by observation through each cycle lasting 35 days. Response per clinical and radiographic assessment (by PET/CT) is evaluated by the investigator and by independent review using Lugano Classification with LYRIC modification. Key efficacy endpoints include ORR, duration of response (DOR), time to response (TTR), and OS. After treatment is completed or discontinued, pts are assessed every 3 months up to 24 months, and every 6 months thereafter for survival status up to 5 years. Results: As of May 2021, 38 pts (24 SOT, 14 HCT) were evaluable for response assessment by independent oncologic response adjudication (IORA) and had the opportunity for 6 months follow-up (Table 1). SOT and HCT pts received a median (range) of 2.0 (1-6) and 3.0 (1-5) cycles of tabelecleucel, respectively. ORR was 50% (19/38, 95% CI: 33.4, 66.6) in the overall population, 50.0% (12/24, 95% CI: 29.1, 70.9) in SOT, and 50.0% (7/14, 95% CI: 23.0, 77.0) in HCT, with a best overall response of CR (n=5, SOT; n=5, HCT) or PR (n=7, SOT; n=2, HCT; Table 2). Overall, median TTR was 1.1 months (0.7-4.7), 11 of 19 responders had a DOR lasting >6 months, and median DOR was not reached (Table 2). Median OS was 18.4 (95% CI: 6.9, NE) months overall, 16.4 (95% CI: 3.5, NE) months for SOT, and not yet reached for HCT. 1-year survival rate was 61.1% (95% CI: 42.9, 75.0) overall, 57.4% (95% CI: 35.2, 74.5) for SOT, and 66.8% (95% CI: 32.4, 86.6) for HCT. Those who responded had a longer survival compared to the non-responders, with a median OS of NE (95% CI: 16.4, NE) and 1-year survival rate of 89.2% (95% CI: 63.1, 97.2). Non-responders had a median OS of 5.7 (95% CI: 1.8, 12.1) months and 1-year survival rate of 32.4% (95% CI: 12.1, 54.9) (Table 3). Serious treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported in 62.5% of SOT and 57.1% of HCT pts. Fatal TEAEs were reported in 16.7% of SOT and 7.1% of HCT pts; none of the fatal TEAEs were related to study treatment. Tabelecleucel was well-tolerated with no reports of TFR and no confirmed evidence for graft vs host disease, organ rejection, infusion reactions, or cytokine release syndrome in relation to tabelecleucel in these treatment refractory and immunocompromised pts. Conclusions: Tabelecleucel phase 3 interim data are reported here for the first time and show clinically meaningful outcomes and promising ORR and OS in a pt population with no approved treatment options and otherwise poor survival. Tabelecleucel, an allogeneic cell therapy, was well tolerated without evidence of safety concerns typically observed with autologous chimeric antigen receptor cell therapies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Prockop: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Other: S Prockop receives support for the conduct of sponsored clinical trials through MSK from Atara Biotherapeutics, Jasper and AlloVir. , Patents & Royalties: S Prockop is a co-inventor on intellectual property (IP) licensed to Atara. S Prockop has waived rights to this IP to MSK and has no personal financial interests in Atara. MSK has financial interests in Atara and IP interests relevant to this abstract. ; Atara Biotherapeutics: Other: support for the conduct of sponsored trials and Inventor; Jasper: Other: support for the conduct of sponsored trials; AlloVir: Other: support for the conduct of sponsored trials; Neovii: Consultancy; ADMA Biologics: Consultancy; MSK: Other: Inventor. Mahadeo: Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy. Beitinjaneh: Kite/Gilead: Other: Ad Board Event Attendee. Choquet: Sanofi, Celegene, Roche, Abbvie, Sandoz, Janssen, Takeda: Consultancy. Stiff: Cellectar: Research Funding; CRISPR: Consultancy; Gamida-Cell, Atara, Amgen, Incyte, Takeda, Macrogenetics, Eisai: Research Funding. Reshef: Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Dahiya: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Parmar: Atara Biotherapeutics: Current Employment. Ye: Atara Biotherapeutics: Current Employment. Gamelin: Atara Biotherapeutics: Current Employment. Dinavahi: Atara Biotherapeutics: Current Employment.

hematology

Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC

Actelion Pharms. LTD v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.

GlaxoSmithKline II and Other Recent Developments in Induced and Contributory Patent Infringement

H. Lundbeck A/S v. Lupin Ltd.

Biotechnology Patent Law Top Ten of 2022: Inducement, Clear Error, and Interferences Galore

FDA Regulation: An Answer to the Questions of Human Cloning and Germline Gene Therapy

Key Expert Stakeholder Perceptions of the Law of Genomics: Identified Problems and Potential Solutions

Biospecimen research and the law

Report on Webinar Series Cell and Gene Therapy: From Concept to Clinical Use

Drafting eligible biotech and immunotherapy claims

Real-World Efficacy and Safety Outcomes for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) Aggressive B-Cell Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (aBNHL) Treated with Commercial Tisagenlecleucel: Update from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) Registry

Reproductive and therapeutic cloning, germline therapy, and purchase of gametes and embryos: comments on Canadian legislation governing reproduction technologies

Regulatory concerns in human gene therapy

Pharmacological Profile and Clinical Outcomes of KTE-X19 By Prior Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (BTKi) Exposure or Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) Morphology in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) MCL in the ZUMA-2 Trial

The law of genetic privacy: applications, implications, and limitations

Abstract A028: Subclonal lineage recording in glioblastoma using CRISPR base editing

Why are Higher CD34+ Cell Doses Associated with Improved Outcomes among Pediatric Patients Undergoing Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant for Central Nervous System Tumors – But Not for High-Risk Neuroblastoma?

Patent Cliffs in the Era of Complex Therapies and Biologics

Biotechnology and law: biotechnology patents. Special considerations on the inventions with human material

Genome research: fulfilling the public's expectations for knowledge and commercialization

Multicenter, Open-Label, Phase 3 Study of Tabelecleucel for Solid Organ or Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients with Epstein-Barr Virus-Driven Post Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disease after Failure of Rituximab or Rituximab and Chemotherapy (ALLELE)