A failure like this isn't just one dude forgetting, its a system failure where policies and checks failed. If it is solely up to one person that is a failure in and of itself.
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 it's quite chaotic and political, so I wouldn't rule out an internal oversight.
> 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.
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.
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.
Not really. It doesn't look like a blog, and it's not a person/org's specific blog post. It's just called "blog" in a breadcrumb somewhere, which most people won't read. It's actual a guest editorial, but still - doesn't really look like one.
Yeah, it really is, even if what's linked to is one post rather than the entire blog.
His stuff pops up here often enough. He really does blog at Science. Has for years and years.
If you have a background in chemistry, it's fairly accessible (i.e., he very rarely talks about anything in a depth that an undergrad chem major would have trouble understanding - which, given that most chemists start branching off very quickly in grad school, is roughly the appropriate depth for writing intended for a general chemistry audience, since it's the last common knowledge level).
The top of the sidebar describes what "In the Pipeline" is.
I would agree. The so-called bus factor has been common knowledge in the industries in question for literal decades now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
> An early instance of this sort of query was when Michael McLay publicly asked, in 1994, what would happen to the Python language if Guido van Rossum were to be hit by a bus.
http://legacy.python.org/search/hypermail/python-1994q2/1040...
There is also a possibility of a paying a late fee and, finally, there is also a reinstatement process.
NN could have missed all these, but they would have to be a really dysfunctional organization. Definitely not a low bus-factor situation.
I don’t know what kind of sequence of events could lead to this outcome at NN, but perhaps they were hoist by their own petard. I’m reminded of the “money on the ground” joke involving two economists, which is semi-famous in these parts.
To wit:
> Economist 1: Look, there’s $20 on the ground!
> Economist 2: No there isn’t. If there were, someone would have picked it up already.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/19/money-on-the-ground/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28029044
Perhaps the folks at NN are so busy picking up (billions of) dollars that they neglect the dimes on the ground that it would cost to comply with these seemingly trivial, even menial functional requirements of keeping their money printer running.
I’m honestly as befuddled by this brouhaha as anyone. This is a monumental failure of multiple entire business units to perform the core competencies of their jobs. That said, I could honestly believe that the number of people whose job it is (or perhaps was) to worry about the patent expiry at all, let alone be aware of the repeated communiques from the Canadian patent office, is quite low. I would further believe that the accountability dodging has only just begun behind closed doors, if the internal game of megacorporate musical chairs hasn’t already concluded well before this news broke and reached the shores of HN.
I've zero idea about anything specific to Novo Nordisk, but have enough exposure to IP in Canada to envision the above happening in other cases.
It seems much more likely to me that they did it on purpose, as they claim to have.
This isn't what that joke means.