In this presentation post, I want to share a recent development concerning AbCellera that I came across in the news. AbCellera exploded into the biotech scene in recent years, with its involvement in antibodies against COVID-19 making a particular impression.
Not only that, AbCellera is a point of pride for Vancouverites – it is a spinoff from research here at UBC that closed the largest ever initial public offering in the Canadian biotech space. It is rapidly developing its global headquarters in the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood, providing room for up to 1,000 employees by 2028. With Senior Vice-President Murray McCutcheon comparing its commitment to stay in Vancouver to how the global biotech hubs in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and San Francisco got started, it is hard not to get excited about the future of the biotech scene here in Vancouver through AbCellera’s establishment.
What makes the company so special? To start, the company labels itself a “technology company“. Unlike traditional biotech companies, AbCellera’s focus lies on using AI to look for antibodies that are especially promising for drug development. This technology is accessed by pharmaceutical companies through partnerships – one example is the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, which partnered with AbCellera to develop antibody bamlanivimab to treat COVID-19 in 2020. It is companies like this that will raise difficult questions regarding AI and intellectual property, which we discussed especially in the context of copyright during this semester.
For companies like AbCellera, holding patents is especially important. In Canada, a patent is a “state concession of a monopoly over the exploitation of an invention” with the monopoly lasting for 20 years from the date of patent application for “novel, useful, and non-obvious” inventions (Casebook 2nd ed, pg 634; emphasis added). The goal is to promote innovation by granting a limited period of exclusivity in exchange of publicizing the invention – or, “advance research and development and to encourage broader economic activity” (Free World Trust , Electro Sante Inc, 2000 SCC 66 at para 42). AbCellera makes its revenue through partnerships with companies, where partnered corporations can make usage of AbCellera’s technologies. Patents serve as an incredibly important tool that prevent competitors or partners to copy the company’s AI technology – if companies have their own ability to use AI to look for antibodies, it may impact AbCellera’s position in the market. The monopoly the company holds over its innovations is a vital strength, evidenced by its press releases of various patents AbCellera acquired.
This is why the recent civil claim against AbCellera for reasons including patent infringement is so intriguing and potentially impactful.* The estate of Dr. Schrader, as well as ImmVivos, a corporation owned by the Dr. Schrader’s family, is claiming that AbCellera, through founder Dr. Hansen, infringed on Dr. Schrader’s patents (which have since been transferred to ImmVivos).
It is important to keep in mind that there are only limited information available at the moment. The suit was only filed in October, so it may be awhile until we get additional details. For example, while Drs. Schrader and Hansen did do research together at UBC prior to Dr. Hansen incorporating AbCellera, how do Dr. Schrader’s patents impact AbCellera’s own patents, if at all? Should the claim be successful, what will be the impact on AbCellera – would they be limited in their ability to use or license out their patented technology, or would they have to forfeit some of their revenues from implicated patents to ImmVivos? Canadian courts have wide scope in remedies for patent infringement, including the equitable remedy of destruction (Casebook 2nd ed, pg 829).
For intellectual property lawyers (and students) in Vancouver, this development is certainly one to keep an eye on. With AbCellera’s already significant footprint in Vancouver, should the claim go forward there may be huge ramifications for the still-nascent biotech scene in town.
* I was unable to locate the notice of civil claim online, so I am relying on the secondary source reporting on the claim.
Communications Law