IntoCell CEO denies patent issue as cause to scrap ABL Bio deal

IntoCell signed a license-out agreement with ABL Bio in October last year for the development of an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) linker-payload. However, less than a year after the agreement was executed, it was terminated on July 9, 2025. ABL Bio stated that it terminated the agreement due to “patent issues.” It explained that the Nexatecan compound owned by IntoCell may conflict with a Chinese company.

The patent issue has spread beyond ABL Bio to Pinotbio, another ADC developer. Against this backdrop, Korea Biomedical Review interviewed IntoCell CEO Park Tae-kyo to examine the implications of this case for the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, considering the position of IntoCell, the original developer where the patent issue arose.

Disagreements over the interpretation of material patents, the scope of technology transfer, and the appropriateness of patent infringement analysis (Freedom to Operate, FTO) can lead to the termination of strategic partnerships. The recent termination of the joint research agreement between IntoCell and ABL Bio was a notable example.

It was reported that the primary reason for the termination was the determination that some of the payloads in the Nexatecan series share structural similarities with Chinese patents. However, IntoCell maintains that this issue does not constitute grounds for terminating the entire contract. “Technology transfer is feasible based on patent applications alone, and we have secured a diverse portfolio of drugs beyond Nexatecan,” CEO Park said.

Question: What is the background behind the termination of the contract with ABL Bio?

Answer: The contract was not limited to Nexatecan, which is used as a payload. It was structured to allow the use of Nexatecan-based drugs with various OHPAS (Ortho-Hydroxy Protected Aryl Sulfate) linkers for six targets. When we discovered that one of the 30 Nexatecan compounds we had secured overlapped with a patent filed in China, ABL Bio terminated the entire contract. From our standpoint, we wanted to suspend only the problematic compound and continue other research.

Q: Could you provide a more detailed explanation of the Chinese patent issue?

A: It was belatedly discovered that the structure of our Nexatecan compound No. 3 was similar to that of an undisclosed Chinese patent intermediate. This was identified through FTO analysis, and the compound in question is just one of the over 30 we hold. We subsequently proposed alternative compounds and communicated that we were willing to consider licensing the No. 3 compound from China if necessary.

Q: Some argue that it is inappropriate to transfer technology at the patent’s filing stage, not after registering it.

A: This is an argument made by those who do not understand the industry well. Technology transfer typically occurs during the patent filing stage. As seen in cases such as Alteogen, Genosco, and Orum Therapeutics, technology transfer agreements are entirely possible even with technologies that are still in the application stage. Since registration can take a long time, technology transfer can be carried out under mutual agreement between the two companies if the experimental data and technical feasibility are deemed sufficient.

Q: The termination of this contract may give the impression that IntoCell only holds Nexatecan.

A: This is the most unfair part. We hold the OHPAS Linker technology and have developed payload series for the duocarmycin and benzodiazepine classes, as well as multiple Nexatecan payload series. The ADC materials created using our linker and payload technologies have secured various preclinical data.

Q: There have also been patent issues raised with Pinotbio recently.

A: The intermediate compound we are developing for Nexatecan 3 is structurally similar to a payload compound patented by Pinotbio. However, this is an intermediate compound, not the final drug, and the issue can be resolved by excluding the relevant claims from the patent. We are already developing other series, with the main focus on a structure where a phenol group is attached to the core. This is currently under patent application, and adjustments can be made during the registration process through discussions with the examiner.

Q: Is there any possibility that Pinotbio could claim patent infringement regarding this part?

A: As it is currently only filed, they cannot file an infringement lawsuit. Even if it is registered, we can exclude the relevant claim. The structure itself is recognized as novel in terms of the method used to develop an ADC. We have created an independent combination using OHPAS Linker technology. There is sufficient structural differentiation from existing patents.

Q: Is there any message you'd like to share?

A: It's hard to accept the claim that we went public without any technology. Discrediting the entire company's technology based on Nexatecan alone is a significant exaggeration. IntoCell will continue to enhance its global competitiveness by leveraging its diverse portfolio of drugs.