{"id":39578,"date":"2026-09-09T11:24:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-09T15:24:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=39578"},"modified":"2026-09-01T21:44:42","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T01:44:42","slug":"the-patent-owner-on-your-screen-may-not-own-the-patent-anymore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/the-patent-owner-on-your-screen-may-not-own-the-patent-anymore\/","title":{"rendered":"The Patent Owner on Your Screen May Not Own the Patent Anymore"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Short Answer<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Search a drug’s core patent on Google Patents, Espacenet, or the USPTO’s own Patent Public Search, and you get one line labeled “Current Assignee.” Treat that line as the final word on who controls the patent, and you can be wrong in at least four distinct ways: the recorded assignee may hold nothing but a shell entity name inside a much larger corporate parent, the real commercial owner may control the drug through an exclusive license that never touches the assignment record at all, the transfer may simply not be recorded yet because recordation at the USPTO is not mandatory, or the transfer that was recorded may not have conveyed what everyone assumed it conveyed. Cobenfy, the schizophrenia drug Bristol Myers Squibb bought for $14 billion when it acquired Karuna Therapeutics in March 2024, is a working example of the first two problems at once: the composition patent behind the drug is still assigned, on paper, to a PureTech Health entity that is neither Karuna nor Bristol Myers Squibb [1] [2].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What “Assignee of Record” Actually Means (and What It Doesn’t)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Patent ownership in the United States runs on 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 261. The statute treats a patent as personal property and requires that any assignment be made “by an instrument in writing” [3]. It also lets the USPTO record documents related to that ownership, which is where the “assignee” field on every patent database comes from.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Legal Mechanics of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 261<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The statute does two separate things. First, it says a written assignment transfers title. Second, it says an unrecorded assignment is void against a later, good-faith purchaser of the same rights, unless the first assignment is recorded within three months of execution or before the second purchase closes [3] [4]. That second clause is a priority rule, not a validity rule. A transfer can be perfectly valid between the two parties to it and still lose to a later claimant who records first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recordation Is Not Mandatory, and That Is the Problem<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The USPTO will record an assignment “upon request” [3]. Nothing in the statute forces a buyer to record promptly, or at all. Research using the USPTO’s own Patent Assignment Dataset has noted directly that recording a change of patent ownership is not mandatory, even though patent statute and federal regulation provide incentives to do it anyway [4]. In practice, this means a patent can change beneficial ownership the day a merger closes while its USPTO record stays untouched for months, years, or indefinitely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the USPTO Actually Verifies When It Records an Assignment<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Nothing. Federal regulation is explicit that recording an assignment document “is an administrative action and not a determination of the validity of the document or of the effect that the document has on the title” to the patent [5]. The USPTO’s assignment desk is a filing cabinet, not a title company. It will record a defective transfer just as readily as a clean one, and it will just as happily leave a patent’s public record pointing at a company that sold the underlying business a decade ago, because nobody asked it to update the entry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Often Do Patents Actually Change Hands?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Patent reassignment is not a rare event confined to headline mergers. It is routine, and it has grown sharply as an activity in its own right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The USPTO’s Own Data on Reassignment Volume<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The USPTO’s Office of the Chief Economist maintains the Patent Assignment Dataset, built from roughly 6 million recorded assignments, licenses, security interests, and other conveyances covering about 10 million patents and applications between 1970 and 2014, later expanded to over 10.5 million transactions covering 18.8 million patents and applications [6]. Analysis of that dataset by USPTO economists found that patent reassignments rose roughly tenfold between 1980 and 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Patent reassignments have risen tenfold from around 2,000 to over 20,000 cases between 1980 and 2016.” (Analysis of the USPTO Patent Assignment Dataset, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 2018) [4]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That is a market, not an anomaly. A patent portfolio built or acquired over a decade has a meaningful chance of touching that market at least once, and every touch is a fork in the road between what the record shows and what is actually true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Counts as a “Reassignment” (Merger, License, Security Interest, Name Change)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Patent Assignment Dataset does not track a single transaction type. It tracks assignments, mergers, name changes, security interests, and licenses together, because the USPTO accepts all of them for recording under 37 CFR Part 3 [5] [6]. That mixture matters for anyone reading a “current assignee” field: the entry might reflect a straightforward sale, a corporate rename with no change in beneficial ownership at all, or a bank’s security interest recorded against the patent as loan collateral, sitting there until the loan is repaid and the lien is released.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study: The Antipsychotic Patent That Never Changed Hands on Paper<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Cobenfy (xanomeline and trospium chloride) is the first new mechanism of action approved for schizophrenia in decades, cleared by the FDA on September 26, 2024 [7]. It is also the cleanest available illustration of why the assignee field and the ownership story can diverge completely, because the divergence is visible on the patent’s own public record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Karuna Therapeutics, PureTech, and the $14 Billion Deal<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Karuna Therapeutics was a company founded by PureTech Health to develop KarXT, later renamed Cobenfy [2]. Bristol Myers Squibb announced its acquisition of Karuna in December 2023 and completed the deal on March 18, 2024, for a total equity value of approximately $14 billion [1]. From that date, Karuna Therapeutics, Inc. has operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb, and PureTech retains a royalty interest and milestone rights under its licensing agreements with Karuna and Bristol Myers Squibb [2].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the Recorded Assignment History on US10,695,339 Actually Shows<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

US Patent 10,695,339 B2 covers the core method of administering xanomeline together with trospium chloride, the combination that defines Cobenfy [8]. Pulling the assignment history on that patent directly from its USPTO-sourced record turns up a short, internally consistent chain: on June 26, 2019, the named inventors assigned their rights to PureTech Management, Inc., which on the same date reassigned the patent to PureTech Health LLC. A further internal reassignment between the same two PureTech entities was recorded on July 8, 2025 [8]. Neither Karuna Therapeutics nor Bristol Myers Squibb appears anywhere in that recorded chain, more than a year after the $14 billion deal closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Three Different Answers to “Who Owns Cobenfy,” Depending on Which Database You Ask<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Ask three different systems who owns the intellectual property behind Cobenfy, and you get three different, individually defensible answers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The FDA’s Applicant of Record<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The FDA’s own proprietary-name review correspondence for Cobenfy is addressed to Karuna Therapeutics, Inc. [9]. The regulatory approval, and the exclusivity that runs with it, sits with Karuna as the named applicant, not with PureTech and not with Bristol Myers Squibb directly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The USPTO’s Assignee of Record<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The USPTO’s assignment record for the composition patent names PureTech Health LLC, an entity that is neither the drug’s regulatory sponsor nor its commercial owner [8]. This is the entry that Google Patents, Espacenet, and most third-party patent-landscaping tools will surface first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Company Actually Selling the Drug<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Bristol Myers Squibb markets Cobenfy, books its revenue, and runs its Phase 3 life-cycle program, all without appearing as the assignee of the core patent [1]. Its control runs through the license and royalty structure it inherited when it bought Karuna, not through an assignment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Record Checked<\/strong><\/th>Entity Named<\/strong><\/th>What That Record Actually Tracks<\/strong><\/th>Source<\/strong><\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
USPTO assignment history, US10,695,339<\/td>PureTech Health LLC<\/td>Legal title to the composition patent<\/td>[8]<\/td><\/tr>
FDA proprietary-name correspondence<\/td>Karuna Therapeutics, Inc.<\/td>The regulatory applicant of record for Cobenfy<\/td>[9]<\/td><\/tr>
Corporate acquisition record<\/td>Bristol Myers Squibb<\/td>Commercial control, marketing, and revenue<\/td>[1]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A researcher who pulls only the USPTO field and stops there would describe the patent owner as a PureTech affiliate. A researcher who pulls only the Orange Book or FDA correspondence would describe it as Karuna. A researcher tracking the news would describe it as Bristol Myers Squibb. All three are using a real, current, primary-source record. Only one of the three tells a competitor or investor who actually controls the commercial future of the drug, and figuring out which one requires following the license and corporate-structure trail behind the assignment record, not just reading the record itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study: When “I Own It” Is Not Enough to Sue<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A recorded, or even an actually valid, ownership interest is not automatically enough to bring an infringement suit. Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen shows what happens when a company assumes its ownership claim is sufficient and finds out otherwise in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Enbrel Patent and a Research Agreement<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The dispute centered on U.S. Patent 5,981,701, covering a tumor necrosis factor inhibitory protein used in Enbrel, the rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis drug [10]. Israel Bio-Engineering Project (IBEP) had funded research under an agreement with Yeda Research and Development, and later argued that agreement gave it full ownership of the patent, entitling it to sue Amgen, Immunex, and Wyeth for infringement without joining Yeda as a co-plaintiff [10].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the Federal Circuit Threw the Case Out<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit disagreed. It held that an invention presumptively belongs to its creator, that a co-inventor presumptively owns a pro rata undivided interest in the whole patent regardless of relative contribution, and that IBEP’s funding agreement did not carry enough weight to override that presumption for the inventor who assigned to Yeda [10]. Because Yeda held an ownership interest that IBEP had not acquired, and Yeda did not join the suit, the court affirmed that IBEP lacked standing to sue at all. The case was decided on January 29, 2007, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari [11].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Standing Lesson for Every Licensing Deal<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

IBEP’s theory of ownership was not frivolous; it was a genuine, litigated interpretation of a real contract. It still failed, because the underlying assignment chain did not actually convey full title the way IBEP believed it had. Anyone relying on a counterparty’s own description of “we own this patent” is relying on the same kind of claim that lost in Israel Bio-Engineering Project. The chain of title has to be checked against what was actually assigned, not against what a business summary says was assigned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Study: The Same Patents, Four Corporate Names, One Recorded Assignee<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Botox illustrates a third, quieter version of the same problem: the corporate parent can change completely, repeatedly, while the recorded patent assignee stays exactly the same, because the entity actually holding the patents is a surviving subsidiary rather than the parent itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Watson to Actavis to Allergan to AbbVie in Eight Years<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Watson Pharmaceuticals acquired the Swiss Actavis Group in 2012 and renamed itself Actavis, Inc. in January 2013 [12]. Actavis acquired Warner Chilcott in 2013 and Forest Laboratories in 2014, then completed a roughly $70.5 billion acquisition of Allergan, Inc., the maker of Botox, in March 2015, after which the combined company took the Allergan name [13]. AbbVie then acquired Allergan plc for $63 billion in a deal that closed on May 8, 2020 [13]. In eight years, the parent company controlling Botox changed its name and structure four times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why “Allergan, Inc.” Still Shows Up as Assignee Today<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Botox composition and treatment patents such as US8,486,886, covering botulinum toxin treatments, list Allergan Inc as both the original and current assignee on their public USPTO-sourced record [14]. That entry is accurate as far as it goes. Allergan, Inc. still exists as a subsidiary within the AbbVie corporate family, and the patent was never reassigned out of it. But a reader who checks only the assignee field and does not check the parent-company chain would have no way of knowing, from the patent record alone, that the entity actually setting Botox’s commercial strategy, litigation posture, and pricing today is AbbVie, a company that did not exist under that name when the underlying patents were filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An Original Taxonomy: Four Ways the Assignee Field Misleads You<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Across these cases, the gap between the recorded assignee and actual control falls into four recurring patterns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

License-Obscured Control<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The company that actually markets, prices, and defends the drug controls it through an exclusive license or acquisition of the corporate owner, not through a patent assignment, so the assignment record never changes at all. Cobenfy is the clearest example: Bristol Myers Squibb controls the drug commercially without ever appearing on the composition patent’s USPTO record [1] [8].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recordation Lag<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The transfer happened and was properly executed, but because recordation is optional under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 261, nobody has recorded it yet, or the recordation has not propagated to the third-party databases most researchers use [3] [4].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surviving-Subsidiary Naming<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The patent-holding entity is a wholly owned subsidiary that keeps its original name through repeated changes of ultimate parent, so the assignee field is technically correct at the subsidiary level while saying nothing about who controls the subsidiary. Allergan, Inc. inside AbbVie is the model case [13] [14].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defective or Contested Transfer<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A party believes, and may even have recorded, an assignment that a court later finds did not convey what was claimed, because a co-owner never joined the transfer or the underlying agreement did not carry the rights the assignee assumed it did. Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen is the litigated example [10] [11].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pattern<\/strong><\/th>What the Record Shows<\/strong><\/th>What Is Actually True<\/strong><\/th>Example<\/strong><\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
License-obscured control<\/td>Assignee unchanged<\/td>Real control sits with a licensee or acquirer of the assignee’s parent<\/td>Cobenfy \/ Bristol Myers Squibb<\/td><\/tr>
Recordation lag<\/td>Assignee unchanged<\/td>A transfer occurred but has not been recorded, since recordation is optional<\/td>General pattern under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 261 [3][4]<\/td><\/tr>
Surviving-subsidiary naming<\/td>Assignee unchanged<\/td>The named subsidiary still exists, but its parent has changed repeatedly<\/td>Botox \/ Allergan, Inc. inside AbbVie<\/td><\/tr>
Defective or contested transfer<\/td>Assignee appears changed or claimed<\/td>A court finds the transfer did not convey full title<\/td>Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Methodology: How We Traced These Ownership Chains<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Primary Sources Consulted<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Corporate control claims were checked against acquisition-completion press releases from the acquiring companies themselves [1] [13]. Patent assignment claims were checked against the assignment-history data attached to each patent’s own public record, sourced from USPTO recordation filings, rather than against secondary news summaries of “who owns” a given patent [8] [14].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Time Period and Scope<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The reassignment-volume statistics cited above cover USPTO recordations from 1970 through 2016 [4] [6]. The Cobenfy and Botox patent-record pulls reflect the assignment history as recorded through the most recent entries visible on each patent’s public record at the time of research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Limitations<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

An assignment record with no entry for a given acquirer does not prove the acquirer has no rights in the patent; it proves only that no assignment to that acquirer has been recorded, which is consistent with control running through a license, a corporate acquisition of the assignee entity, or an unrecorded transfer. Distinguishing between those explanations, as this article does for Cobenfy, requires cross-checking the patent record against independent corporate and regulatory sources rather than reading the patent record alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Happens When a Security Interest Is Recorded Instead of a Sale<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Patents as Loan Collateral<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The USPTO accepts security interests, meaning liens against a patent used as loan collateral, for recording alongside true assignments, under the same Part 3 regulations [5]. A biotech that pledges its patent portfolio to a lender will typically have that security interest recorded, and the cover sheet for a security interest looks structurally similar to an assignment cover sheet: a “conveying party,” a “receiving party,” and a patent number.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why a Lien Looks Identical to an Assignment on a Cover Sheet<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Reading only the “nature of conveyance” field carelessly, or relying on a third-party aggregator that does not surface it clearly, can lead a researcher to conclude a lender now owns a patent it has only taken as collateral. The company borrowing against the patent remains the actual owner unless and until the loan defaults and the lender forecloses; the recorded security interest is a claim on the patent, not a transfer of it, and it is typically released and cleared from the record once the loan is repaid [5].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FTC, Orange Book Listings, and the NDA Holder Problem<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Why the Orange Book Does Not Solve This Either<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The FDA’s Orange Book lists patents against the NDA holder that submits them, not against whichever entity the USPTO happens to show as current assignee [9]. That means a researcher cannot use the Orange Book as a shortcut to true patent ownership either: it will reliably tell you who holds the regulatory approval, which was Karuna Therapeutics for Cobenfy even after Bristol Myers Squibb’s acquisition closed, but it says nothing about who the USPTO’s own assignment record names as patent owner, and the two lists do not have to agree [9] [8]. A full reassignment trail has to reconcile the Orange Book applicant, the USPTO assignee, and the corporate-control record separately, because each answers a different legal question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How to Actually Build a Reassignment Trail<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Step 1: Pull the Full Assignment History, Not Just the Current Owner<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Every recorded transaction on a patent, not just the most recent one, is available through the patent’s own assignment history. Reading only the top-line “current assignee” field skips exactly the kind of internal, non-obvious reassignment that showed up on the Cobenfy composition patent [8].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Step 2: Cross-Reference Acquisition and Merger Announcements<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Corporate acquisitions are announced through press releases with specific closing dates, and those dates rarely match the date, if any, that a corresponding patent assignment gets recorded [1] [13]. Comparing the two timelines is often the fastest way to spot a control change the patent record has not caught up to yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Step 3: Check for License Language, Not Just Assignment Language<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

An exclusive license can hand a company effective commercial control of a drug without any patent ever being assigned to it, as the Cobenfy structure shows [2] [8]. Distinguishing a license from an assignment matters because a license is not a transfer of ownership under patent law, even when it is exclusive [3].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Step 4: Watch the Recordation Date Against the Execution Date<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Because 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 261 gives an assignment priority protection only if it is recorded within three months of execution, or before a competing purchaser records first, the gap between when a transfer happened and when it was recorded is itself a data point worth tracking, not a formality to skip past [3] [4].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For pharmaceutical IP teams doing this work at scale, across hundreds of patents rather than one drug at a time, patent-family and ownership-tracking tools built specifically for the industry, such as those DrugPatentWatch maintains, exist precisely because pulling and reconciling these records manually, patent by patent, does not scale past a handful of assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 261 makes USPTO recordation of a patent assignment optional, not mandatory, so the assignee field can lag actual ownership indefinitely [3] [4].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Patent reassignments recorded at the USPTO rose roughly tenfold between 1980 and 2016, from about 2,000 to over 20,000 cases a year, making this a routine event rather than an edge case [4].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • The USPTO’s own regulations state that recording an assignment is a ministerial act and not a determination of the validity of the underlying transfer [5].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • The core composition patent behind Cobenfy, US10,695,339, remains assigned to PureTech Health LLC on the USPTO record more than a year after Bristol Myers Squibb’s $14 billion acquisition of Karuna Therapeutics closed, because Bristol Myers Squibb’s control runs through corporate acquisition and license, not patent assignment [1] [8].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen shows that a company’s own belief that it owns a patent, even a belief grounded in a real research agreement, is not the same as having standing to sue on it [10] [11].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Botox patents such as US8,486,886 still list Allergan, Inc. as assignee even though the ultimate parent company has changed four times since the patents were filed, from Watson Pharmaceuticals to Actavis to Allergan plc to AbbVie [13] [14].<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    FAQ<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Is a patent assignment required to be recorded with the USPTO?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    No. Recordation is optional under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 261, though an unrecorded assignment can lose priority to a later, good-faith purchaser who records first within three months of executing their own assignment [3] [4].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Does the USPTO verify that a recorded assignment is valid?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    No. Federal regulation states plainly that recording an assignment document is an administrative action, not a determination of the document’s validity or its actual effect on title [5].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Why doesn’t Bristol Myers Squibb appear as the assignee on Cobenfy’s core patent?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Bristol Myers Squibb controls Cobenfy through its March 2024 acquisition of Karuna Therapeutics and the license structure Karuna held with PureTech, not through a direct patent assignment. The USPTO record for the composition patent, US10,695,339, still names PureTech Health LLC [1] [2] [8].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Can a company own a patent and still lack standing to sue for infringement?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Yes. In Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen, the Federal Circuit held that a company’s asserted ownership interest, based on a research funding agreement, did not establish sole ownership, and its infringement suit was dismissed for lack of standing because a co-owner had not joined [10] [11].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Why does Allergan, Inc. still show up as the assignee on Botox patents?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Allergan, Inc. remains the actual patent-holding subsidiary within AbbVie’s corporate structure. The parent company controlling that subsidiary changed from Watson Pharmaceuticals to Actavis to Allergan plc to AbbVie between 2012 and 2020, but the patents were never reassigned out of the Allergan, Inc. entity itself [13] [14].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What is the difference between a patent assignment and an exclusive license?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    An assignment transfers ownership of the patent itself and is recorded as a change in assignee. A license, even an exclusive one, grants rights to use the patent without transferring ownership, and it does not change who the USPTO lists as assignee of record [3].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Does the FDA Orange Book show who owns a drug’s patents?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The Orange Book lists patents against the NDA holder that submitted them to the FDA, which is a regulatory designation, not necessarily the same entity the USPTO lists as the patent’s current assignee. The two records can and do diverge [9] [8].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How often do pharmaceutical patents actually change ownership?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Reassignment activity across all U.S. patents, not pharma-specific, rose roughly tenfold between 1980 and 2016, from about 2,000 to over 20,000 recorded cases a year, according to analysis of the USPTO’s own Patent Assignment Dataset [4].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Can a recorded security interest on a patent be mistaken for an ownership transfer?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Yes, if a researcher reads only the top-level conveyance type without checking the details. The USPTO records security interests, meaning patents pledged as loan collateral, using cover sheets structurally similar to assignment cover sheets, but a security interest does not transfer ownership; it is a lien that is released once the underlying loan is satisfied [5].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What is the most reliable way to check who currently controls a drug’s patents?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    No single database is sufficient on its own. A reliable check cross-references the USPTO’s recorded assignment history, the FDA’s Orange Book applicant of record, and independent corporate acquisition or licensing announcements, because each source answers a different legal question and they are not required to agree with one another [3] [9] [1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    References<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. Bristol Myers Squibb. (2024, March 18). Bristol Myers Squibb Completes Acquisition of Karuna Therapeutics, Strengthening Neuroscience Portfolio<\/em>. https:\/\/news.bms.com\/news\/details\/2024\/Bristol-Myers-Squibb-Completes-Acquisition-of-Karuna-Therapeutics-Strengthening-Neuroscience-Portfolio\/default.aspx<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. PureTech Health. (n.d.). Cobenfy<\/em>. https:\/\/www.puretechhealth.com\/program\/cobenfy\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2024). 301 Ownership\/Assignability of Patents and Applications<\/em>, MPEP Rev. 01.2024. https:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/web\/offices\/pac\/mpep\/s301.html<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. Graham, S. J. H., Marco, A. C., & Myers, A. F. (2018). Patent transactions in the marketplace: Lessons from the USPTO Patent Assignment Dataset. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 27<\/em>(3), 343-371. https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/jems.12262<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    5. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2015). 313 Recording of Licenses, Security Interests, and Documents Other Than Assignments<\/em>, MPEP Rev. 07.2015. https:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/web\/offices\/pac\/mpep\/s313.html<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    6. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Office of the Chief Economist. (n.d.). Patent Assignment Dataset<\/em>. https:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/ip-policy\/economic-research\/research-datasets\/patent-assignment-dataset<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024, September 26). FDA Approves First Drug to Treat Schizophrenia That Targets Different Receptors Than Previously Approved Drugs for the Condition<\/em> [Cobenfy approval]. Referenced via Bristol Myers Squibb and PureTech Health program materials [1] [2].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    8. Google Patents. (n.d.). US10695339B2 – Methods and compositions for treatment of disorders ameliorated by muscarinic receptor activation<\/em>. https:\/\/patents.google.com\/patent\/US10695339<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Application Number 216158Orig1s000, Proprietary Name Review<\/em> [Cobenfy]. https:\/\/www.accessdata.fda.gov\/drugsatfda_docs\/nda\/2024\/216158Orig1s000NameR.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    10. Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen, Inc., 475 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). CourtListener. https:\/\/courtlistener.com\/opinion\/210838\/israel-bio-engineering-project-v-amgen\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    11. Nixon Peabody LLP. (2007, January 29). Israeli Bio-Eng’g Project v. Amgen, Inc.<\/em> https:\/\/www.nixonpeabody.com\/en\/ideas\/articles\/2007\/01\/29\/israeli-bio-engg-project-v-amgen-inc<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    12. PR Newswire. (2013, January 24). Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is Now Actavis, Inc.<\/em> https:\/\/www.prnewswire.com\/news-releases\/watson-pharmaceuticals-inc-is-now-actavis-inc-188196701.html<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    13. Companies History. (n.d.). Allergan<\/em>. https:\/\/www.companieshistory.com\/allergan\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    14. Google Patents. (n.d.). US8486886B2 – Botulinum toxin treatments<\/em>. https:\/\/patents.google.com\/patent\/US8486886B2\/en<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The Short Answer Search a drug’s core patent on Google Patents, Espacenet, or the USPTO’s own Patent Public Search, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":39579,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights"],"modified_by":"DrugPatentWatch","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39578","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39578"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39578\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39580,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39578\/revisions\/39580"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39579"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}