Preservision AREDS 2 Patent

anonymous

Guest
For all the eye vitamin companies that want to avoid a patent infringement lawsuit and still be able to compete against Preservision AREDS 2 all you have to do is add extra copper. For example,

Vitamin C 500mg
Vitamin E 400IU
Zinc 80mg
Copper 2.6mg
Lutein 10mg
Zeaxanthin 2mg

If you look at the reexamination of their patent you will notice that the patent examiner specifically said not less than 1.6mg and not more than 2.4mg of copper. You can also cite the following references (these were the same references used by the patent examiner denying B&L) :

Prevention Health Books, Prevention's Healing with Vitamins: the Ultimate Guide to Using Natures' Powerhouse Nutrients for Preventing and Curing Disease, Rodale Press, Inc., Edited by Alice Feinstein, pp. 368-374 (1996).

1999 Physician's Desk Reference ("PDR") for Nonprescription Drugs and Dietary Supplements, entry for CENTRUM, p. 834

UK Patent Application GB 2,301,775 (December 18, 1996)

For good measure you can also add the citation for the AREDS 2 study that was funded by tax payers dollars to justify your AREDS 2 name:

The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) Research Group*. Lutein + Zeaxanthin and Omega-3 Fatty Acids for Age-Related Macular DegenerationThe Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2005–2015. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.4997

All you need now is a million dollar TV commercial depicting a completely unrealistic situation regarding how someone is prescribed an AREDS 2 : )
 






For all the eye vitamin companies that want to avoid a patent infringement lawsuit and still be able to compete against Preservision AREDS 2 all you have to do is add extra copper. For example,

Vitamin C 500mg
Vitamin E 400IU
Zinc 80mg
Copper 2.6mg
Lutein 10mg
Zeaxanthin 2mg

If you look at the reexamination of their patent you will notice that the patent examiner specifically said not less than 1.6mg and not more than 2.4mg of copper. You can also cite the following references (these were the same references used by the patent examiner denying B&L) :

Prevention Health Books, Prevention's Healing with Vitamins: the Ultimate Guide to Using Natures' Powerhouse Nutrients for Preventing and Curing Disease, Rodale Press, Inc., Edited by Alice Feinstein, pp. 368-374 (1996).

1999 Physician's Desk Reference ("PDR") for Nonprescription Drugs and Dietary Supplements, entry for CENTRUM, p. 834

UK Patent Application GB 2,301,775 (December 18, 1996)

For good measure you can also add the citation for the AREDS 2 study that was funded by tax payers dollars to justify your AREDS 2 name:

The Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) Research Group*. Lutein + Zeaxanthin and Omega-3 Fatty Acids for Age-Related Macular DegenerationThe Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2005–2015. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.4997

All you need now is a million dollar TV commercial depicting a completely unrealistic situation regarding how someone is prescribed an AREDS 2 : )
Shark Tank!!!