This is clearly made by an LLM and thus not a credible resource.

From:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9336118/

"COM claims can be difficult to gain for repurposed compounds, as the patentee must somehow differentiate their patent claims over what is in the public domain and present data that the drug is a credible candidate for the new indication [41, 42]."

citing

41 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32241561/

42 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30310233/

▲

amanaplanacanal 2 days ago | parent [-]

Do you like this source better?

https://synapse.patsnap.com/blog/what-are-the-types-of-pharm...?

▲

bonsai_spool a day ago | parent [-]

It’s somebody’s random blog instead of three published, peer reviewed articles. I’m not sure what you expect to hear

▲

amanaplanacanal a day ago | parent [-]

It's a matter of law, not science. Ask a patent attorney.

If you like, here is a paper from the Vanderbilt law review: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...

	▲	bonsai_spool 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Did you actually read that article that spends many pages explaining how there is no good way for a firm to patent a repurposed drug that is working the same way as it worked in a prior indication, but is being used for a new indication where it has the same function - exactly what you’re asserting and what I said is not possible? Thanks for the article, it is a good one.