Strip away the press release and the anti-VEGF story is simple: one protein, VEGF, tells blood vessels in the eye to grow and leak, and that leaking destroys vision in conditions like macular degeneration. Block VEGF and you slow the damage. Every major eye-disease franchise is built on that one idea.
Here's what the filing record actually shows: because the idea is so valuable, companies don't just patent a drug — they patent variations, formulations, and dual-target twists, each carving out a defensible corner. Read together, those patents form a thicket that a competitor has to navigate, not a single fence it can step around.
Kodiak Sciences took the dual-target route. Its grant US11155610B2 covers dual PDGF/VEGF antagonists — a molecule that blocks VEGF and a second vessel-growth signal at the same time, on the theory that two brakes hold better than one. The companion publication US20200262905A1 stakes out the same dual-antagonist territory.
Genentech instead refined the antibody itself. Its grant US10899828B2 covers optimized variants of anti-VEGF antibodies — same target, engineered to behave better in the eye, with claims down to the formulation and delivery.
The patent record tells a different story than 'one drug, one patent.' It tells a story of layered protection: the molecule, the variant, the dual-target version, the formulation. A biosimilar maker copying the core antibody can still walk straight into the surrounding claims.
That is the crosswalk worth holding onto. The science is one protein. The commercial reality is a dozen patents, owned by several companies, each defending a slightly different answer to the same question — and that thicket is exactly why anti-VEGF franchises have held their value longer than a single-patent view would predict.