Peanut Butter and Patents

I keep meeting people in the intellectual property business who are surprised that Plumpy’nut received a patent in either the U.S. or European Union. Typically, they explain, patents are granted for inventions that are “non-obvious.” On the face of it, however, Plumpy’nut seems like glorified peanut butter. And it’s a rather obvious idea to give peanut butter to malnourished children.

But no one yet is willing to go “on the record” with such a pronouncement. So my search is still on for a recognized patent attorney or other expert who can take a look at Plumpy’nut story.

The other idea several folks have mentioned is finding out which countries do not have a patent on Plumpy’nut. (There’s apparently no such thing as an international patent. Patents are granted on a country-by-country basis.) It would be perfectly legal to make a peanut butter and dried milk concoction using the Plumpy’nut recipe in those countries where the patent does not exist.

Stephanie Weber at the Univeristy of California at Berkeley raises the important issue of precedent. Will we see more patents on humanitarian relief products after Plumpy’nut? Would that be a good/bad/neutral development?

Of particular interest, when does the Plumpy’nut patent expire? I had assumed a standard term of 14 to 20 years. Needs checking.

Herewith Stephanie’s e-mail (published with permission):

I just read your blog posts. Very interesting topic! Coincidentally, a
colleague and I just gave a two hour presentation on Ready-To-Use Therapeutic Foods (Plumpy’Nut) as an approach to treating children with severe acute malnutrition.

After reading your blog, I had a few initial thoughts and questions to share with you.

First - and you might want to triangulate this statement with other people - Plumpy’nut is considered to have revolutionized the way children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) are treated. Now, instead of spending 30+ days in the hospital or nutritional feeding centers, they can be treated at home by their primary caregiver. Additionally, children are recovering more quickly, and there is no preparation necessary to give them the PN (i.e., no need to add water). PN is cheaper than the traditional mode of treatment and it tastes better.

However, there is still more research that needs to be done to measure the relapse rate of children on Plumpy’nut. For example, are children treated with PN less likely to relapse than children treated with F100?

Second - have you talked with Nutriset? It would be interesting to know why they decided to patent the formula. Also, what is it about the formula that requires patenting? The proportions of ingredients?

I believe the patent is due to expire next year, so an interesting question to consider is what has been the effect of this patent for the past five years? Were more children excluded? Was PN more expensive than it otherwise would have been? To what extent did patenting limit production?

It’s possible that the implications for the future will be more interesting than the findings on cost and access. Even with some restricted access and slightly higher cost for PN, using RUTFs to treat SAM is still way more effective and less expensive than hospitalizing kids
and treating with F100.

Ex Christine: F100 is a milk-based therapeutic food for the treatment of severe malnutrition. Also, it would be good to contact Nutriset but I think a little more background research is in order first. Of course, given this highly interconnected world we live in, Nutriset may post on the blog first?