For those who do scientific research, applying for a patent is the basic requirement for doing scientific research, and a scientific research will apply for a patent if it has new achievements.
The institute says it has developed new uses for Remdesivir. In experiments, there is evidence that it is effective in in vitro cell experiments. For the emerging novel coronavirus, this is definitely something that others have never done.
So research institutions can apply for intellectual property rights. Of course, the right scope of this patent is the use of Remdesivir in anti-novel coronavirus.
And the patent application thing is originally? Running around? Whoever walks in front has the right to speak, and applying for a patent is also protecting his own interests. Although clinical trials are still in progress and the specific results have not yet come out, we will apply for this patent regardless of whether the experimental results prove that Remdesivir is effective in novel coronavirus.
Moreover, the practice of applying for a patent is also to protect national interests. If the drug is not registered first, the supply and price of this drug may not be guaranteed in the future. In this way, China will be controlled by others, so foreign companies will give you medicine if they want to, and will not give you medicine if they don't want to, and give you as much as they want. Moreover, if China has a drug patent for Remdesivir, we can cross-license other patents with foreign companies, which is also a way of negotiation.
This patent application is to prove that Remdesivir has an effect on novel coronavirus in vitro cell experiments. If you want to apply for a patent further, you must have clinical data and declare that this drug cannot be used to make money.
For this kind of acute public health emergency, even if these drugs are patented, others can't use them. If, after applying for a patent, the pharmaceutical factory restricts the use of others in the case of public health emergencies, this is moral.