The metabolic field's consensus by 2021 was that you want to agonize both GLP-1 and GIP. US10905772B2 - "Method of treating or ameliorating metabolic disorders using GLP-1 receptor agonists conjugated to antagonists for gastric inhibitory peptide receptor (GIPR)," issued February 2, 2021 to Amgen Inc. - claims the contrarian bet: agonize GLP-1, but block GIP.
The scientific divergence is the headline, but the claim's enforceable spine is the conjugation. The grant recites a single construct that couples a GLP-1 agonist to a GIPR antagonist - typically an anti-GIPR antibody domain - into one molecule. The CPC tags capture both halves: A61K 47/6849 and A61K 47/6803 (antibody-conjugate chemistry), C07K 16/28 and C07K 16/2869 (the anti-receptor antibody).
Why does the conjugation limitation decide scope? Because the inventive claim is not 'antagonize GIP' in the abstract - prior art on GIPR antagonism exists - but the specific therapeutic construct that delivers GLP-1 agonism and GIPR antagonism together. A competitor administering two separate agents might fall outside a claim drawn to a single conjugate.
This is also a clean illustration of why mechanism alone never tells you claim scope. Amgen's approach (this construct underpins what became its maritide / AMG 133 program) and Lilly's dual-agonist tirzepatide point in opposite pharmacological directions, yet both can hold valid patents because each claims its own specific construct, not the mechanism in the abstract.
For the landscape, the grant marks the metabolic estate branching into incompatible hypotheses - agonize-GIP versus antagonize-GIP - each separately patented. A freedom-to-operate read for any GIP-targeting program has to check both branches, because the prior art now runs in two directions.