Evolve is a specialist pharmaceutical and biotechnology IP firm. Our team includes scientific experts in antibodies, protein engineering, chemistry and biochemistry, the technologies that come together in an ADC.
Related technologies: Antibodies | T cell engagers | Formulations | Platform technologies
An antibody-drug conjugate delivers a potent drug directly to diseased cells. It combines an antibody that targets a specific antigen, a cytotoxic drug and a linker that connects the two. ADCs often use a repurposed antibody with a known cytotoxic drug, which creates obvious patentability challenges unless something about the structure of the ADC is new and inventive, such as the linker (Evolve Insights).
Patentable ADC innovation can lie in the linker and how it releases the payload, the payload itself, the site and method of conjugation, the number of drug molecules per antibody, the antibody, the formulation and manufacturing process, and the clinical regimen, including combinations and patient selection. We help you identify which of these carries the real technical contribution, and build layers of protection around it.
Seagen’s US patent claimed ADCs with a linker made of four glycine and phenylalanine residues, which covered the linker in Enhertu. The priority application had disclosed a vast genus of possible peptide linkers, more than 47 million tetrapeptides alone, without pointing to the claimed group. The Federal Circuit held that this did not provide written description for the claims. Without “blaze marks” leading to the specific linkers claimed, the patent could not rely on its priority date (Evolve Insights).
The US applies its written description and enablement requirements strictly to broadly claimed biologics and platform inventions. The EPO and the UPC are generally more accepting of broad claims, but focus closely on the technical problem solved over the prior art. We draft ADC applications with clear pointers to the preferred linkers, payloads and combinations, supported by data where possible, and a layered claim set that can survive both systems. Japan, China and other markets apply their own standards, and the commercial market for an ADC is global, so we plan the claims and data for each of them. Read more about our patent drafting.
ADC platform patents, patents on antibodies to the target and linker-payload technology may each belong to a different owner. A patent to an antibody as such will usually cover its use in an ADC, so a third party’s antibody patent can block your conjugate. We assess each component and the combination, and help you manage licences and the risk of royalty stacking (Evolve Insights). Read more about our freedom to operate work.
Our fractional IP counsel model places a named senior patent attorney inside your team as your head of IP, managing your own filings alongside the in-licences for antibodies, linkers and payloads, and keeping both aligned with the clinical plan.
Why fractional IP counsel for ADC companies? An ADC brings together antibodies, linkers and payloads that may each come from a different owner. Our patent directors bring the real-world industry experience that you only get working in-house to managing those licences alongside your own filings, and to explaining the position to partners. With our biologics team and AI tools behind them, they offer more than a traditional IP firm or a lone consultant can, with a global strategic approach.
Our validity agent, Albert, maps the data and claims in competitor ADC patents quickly, so that we can see which families are well supported and which are vulnerable. Darwin, our drafting agent, works through the claims and specification with the attorney, and Gilbert checks the finished application. Our attorneys still make every judgement call. Read more about Albert and Evolve AI.
Yes, if something about the combination solves a technical problem. The EPO will ask what the new ADC achieves over the closest prior art, so data showing an advantage, such as better stability, a wider therapeutic window or improved efficacy, is important. In the US, the question is whether a skilled person would have had a reason to make it with a reasonable expectation of success.
More broadly in Europe than in the US. Seagen v Daiichi Sankyo shows that, in the US, a broad genus disclosure will not support later, narrower claims unless the application points clearly to them. Disclose your preferred embodiments specifically, with data where possible, and build in fallback positions from the start. Read more: Seagen v Daiichi Sankyo
Usually yes. A claim to an antibody as such covers products containing that antibody, including an ADC. A third party’s antibody patent can therefore block your ADC, and your antibody patent can reach a competitor’s ADC. Read more: Freedom to operate versus patentability
Dosing regimens, patient subpopulations, combinations and new indications can all support later filings, provided the data make the claimed effect credible on the filing date. Read more: EPO pharma case law trends 2025: Clinical inventions
When the data support the claims you want, and before any publication, poster or conference presentation. The US gives a one-year grace period for your own disclosures, but Europe does not.
We are happy to have an informal conversation about your programme, with no obligation. You can read more about our team, and we also write a regular newsletter on pharma and biotech IP.