Not really. It doesn't look like a blog, and it's not a person/org's specific blog post. It's just called "blog" in a breadcrumb somewhere, which most people won't read. It's actual a guest editorial, but still - doesn't really look like one.
Yeah, it really is, even if what's linked to is one post rather than the entire blog.
His stuff pops up here often enough. He really does blog at Science. Has for years and years.
If you have a background in chemistry, it's fairly accessible (i.e., he very rarely talks about anything in a depth that an undergrad chem major would have trouble understanding - which, given that most chemists start branching off very quickly in grad school, is roughly the appropriate depth for writing intended for a general chemistry audience, since it's the last common knowledge level).
The top of the sidebar describes what "In the Pipeline" is.
> Nordisk has rejected any suggestion that the loss of its Canadian semaglutide patent was a simple mistake. In a statement cited by Fortune, the company stressed that its intellectual property strategy is “carefully considered at a global level,” indicating intentionality rather than a blunder.
> Legal analysts believe the decision was deliberate. Steven Shape, IP Chair at Omnus Law, noted that the annual $250–$450 fee was negligible compared to the looming expiration of both data exclusivity and patent protection in January 2026. Shape argued the lapse was likely “a clear decision by Novo,” not an error.
> That interpretation is bolstered by the company’s simultaneous filing of a Certificate of Supplementary Protection (CSP) in Canada, suggesting Novo valued extended market exclusivity beyond the patent’s life. But because the underlying patent lapsed early, the CSP cannot take effect.
If the interpretation is bolstered by the company’s filing for CSP, but they were ineligible for CSP because they let the patent expire doesn't that imply it was an error?
I'd never heard of CSPs before, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_protection_certi... has some details. They seem to be a patent extension in all but name.
It might not be as nonsensical as the alternative, but I still dont understand how the CSP filing makes it any less likely letting the patent lapse was a mistake.
I know you're not the one making the argument but it really is rediculously silly to argue that it must be an intentional action to not do something because in the past the company wanted to do the thing. While duh, a mistake by definition is something you dont want to do.
I was surprised Science didn't discuss this option. However, reader comments in Science do comment on this possibility.
The idea is that letting the patent lapse would avoid getting regulated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
I know several people working at NN, and it's quite chaotic and political, so I wouldn't rule out an internal oversight.