Debra Borchardt
Compass Pathways plc (Nasdaq: CMPS) announced that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board reaffirmed decisions to uphold its ‘257 Patent and ‘259 Patent, key patents covering COMP360 crystalline psilocybin polymorph A, the polymorph being used in the company’s phase 3 clinical trials.
Compass has been criticized within the psychedelic community for trying to patent psilocybin, and one group, Freedom to Operate filed a Request for Rehearing, claiming the compounds were unpatentable.
Freedom to Operate argued that the board overlooked or misapprehended the proper construction of the term “Polymorph A” and the testimony of its experts. Instead, the board denied the group’s request, clearing a hurdle for Compass.
Compass CEO Kabir Nath said, “Compass is pleased with the PTAB’s decision to uphold two important U.S. patents covering the company’s crystalline psilocybin polymorph A. Patents are a key element of our overall commercial protection of COMP360, which is central to our work in developing innovative treatments for therapeutic areas of significant unmet medical need, including our lead program in treatment-resistant depression.”
The PTAB wrote in its decision that it “construed the term ‘crystalline psilocybin in the form Polymorph A’ to mean ‘a crystal form of psilocybin having the X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) peaks listed in claim 1.’ In doing so, so, we declined to limit the phrase to a single polymorphic phase of psilocybin, as Petitioner urged.”
Freedom to Operate argued that its experts argued against the PTAB’s definition of polymorph or form.
Instead, the PTAB said that Compass’ inventors are entitled to define the phrase, “even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term.”
Freedom to Operate also argued that its experts Dr. Sven Lidin and Dr. James Kaduk offered testimony regarding the components of the polymorph, but the PTAB said expert testimony holds little weight: “Our rules explicitly state: ‘Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.’”
