Trojanlawoffices.com

US: the year in review
The key moments in US pharmaceutical law this year, summarised by R Joseph Trojan,
registered patent attorney and trial lawyer with Trojan Law Offices
It has been an active year for the courts in of Cipro until at least six months before the these provisions.The patent law does not
issuing decisions that will have an impact permit double counting. The Patent Office examination and its patent was found valid had always interpreted double counting to devices industry. Here are just a few of the against other companies’ challenges to the patent. Multiple plaintiffs filed suit against calculated separately and only the greater Bayer and the companies with which it had adjustment should be used. Thus, a patent Reverse payment agreements
reverse payment settlements for federal and do not violate antitrust laws
state anti-trust law violations and under delay or B delay, whichever is longer, but In October 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a critical decision The court in Wyeth disagreed with the holding that reverse payments are not per se antitrust violations. See In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F 3d classified as double counting is if they occur 1323 (Fed Cir 2008). Reverse payments are plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing should be added together to the extent they generic drug maker to end litigation where that the payment has had an actual adverse effect on competition. Observing that the Wyeth, many patents that have been validity of the patent for the drug. These exclude others from making, selling, using issuance will now be entitled to additional time. For some patents, the increase in time Reverse payments have been criticised for court found the payments were in the scope a variety of reasons, including the fact that of an inventor’s patent rights and no anti- challenge to the calculation must be filed force. Essentially, a drug company is paying Patent Office has unlawfully
issue fee is made. At the very most, there is shortened the life of patents
companies believed reverse payments were a Normally, a trial court opinion would not per se violation of the antitrust laws and attention to this critical issue can be worth important decisions. But the case of Wyeth v tens of millions by adding time to the end Federal Circuit disagreed, holding that it Dudas is an exception.The District Court in medical devices typically experience their September that radically altered the way the best sales. Unfortunately, for patents that have already issued, there is no easy remedy.
date of patents.This decision can potentially Circuit held that such agreements will be add years to the life of drug patents and Brand name drug maker held liable
analysed under a rule of reason analysis. But for harm caused by generic drug
with the guidance provided in the court’s Generally, a patent expires 20 years after manufactured by another company
decision, it should be possible now to craft the filing date of the patent application. In reverse payment agreements that can avoid, or at least survive, an anti-trust challenge.
process, time is added on to the patent if the delay is caused by the Patent Office (often can now be held liable for harm caused by follows. Barr challenged Bayer’s patent for referred to as ‘A delay’). Another part of the its drug Cipro. Bayer settled with Barr and patent law provides additional time for every day greater than three years after the filing date that it takes for the patent to issue challenge the validity or enforceability of (often referred to as ‘B delay’).
drug. This expansive decision effectively the Cipro patent nor sell a generic version At issue in Wyeth was the interplay of Universities regularly sue to enforce their BPMC has petitioned for certiorari to the indicated its interest by asking for briefing from all parties. The petition raises the neurological condition and alleged that the instruments of the states, they are immune question of whether a state’s ability to invoke and reject federal jurisdiction at will undermines the patent system. It is argued to the US Constitution. To many, it seems that waiver of immunity if a state regularly patently unfair for a university to use the that the manufacturer failed to adequately create and enforce patent rights, but claim restore the balance intended by Congress in warn of the dangers of long-term use of the they have a right to infringe other patents the Patent Act. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will strike the balance.
Physician’s Desk Reference monograph.
Court asked for briefing on this issue in a case that may open the door to patent suits Safe harbour provision for
research uses no longer as safe
judgment in favour of Wyeth, holding that ‘a In Biomedical Patent Management Corp v For many years, biomedical researchers have State of California, the Federal Circuit benefited from a safe harbour provision in the patent laws that permitted researchers to sovereign immunity, holding that although use certain patented inventions for research warnings extends not only to consumers of infringement. With the Federal Circuit’s doctors foreseeably rely on the name-brand earlier case involving the same parties and August 2008 decision in Proveris Scientific subject matter, such prior waiver would not Corporation v Innovasystems, Inc, the balance is preclude the state from invoking sovereign immunity in a separate or re-filed lawsuit.
researchers need to confirm that they are in relied on Wyeth’s warnings is an issue that to a method for screening birth defects in Under the safe harbour provision, conduct will be determined at trial. Interestingly, a pregnant women, alleged that the State of normally constituting infringement is not finding that the generic manufacturer was California, Department of Health Services classed as such if the patented invention is (DHS), performed laboratory services, and utilised solely for uses reasonably related to determined that there was no evidence that the doctor relied on warnings provided by infringed its patent. There had been three regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drug, even though the labeling and warnings drugs or veterinary biological products. The for the generic drug must be identical to those for the name-brand drug under federal Innovasystems’ use of an infringing device is regulations. Hence, the maker of the generic voluntarily invokes the jurisdiction of a not protected by the safe harbour provision drug that caused the harm to the patient was federal court or if the state makes a clear of 35 USC s271(e)(1) because the device was declaration that it intends to submit itself to not a ‘patented invention’ as that term is used the jurisdiction of a federal court. BMPC was left to defend the lawsuit. It will be argued that California basically litigated interesting to see if this case is taken up by aggressive patent enforcement in the courts.
policies behind the safe harbour provisions and concluded that neither party is within The double standard in patent
law enjoyed by state universities
by intervening and asserting claims against designed to protect, the invention disclosed may come to an end in 2009
in Proveris’ patent was not a ‘patented It is well known that state universities have invention’ under safe harbour provisions.
invoking sovereign immunity in a later or The Proveris holding appears to be at re-filed lawsuit involving the same parties odds with prior precedent in Merck v large number of patents for their efforts.
and subject matter.The court thus affirmed Integra, which broadly read 35 USC s271(e)(1) to protect the infringing user of disclosure only described the preparation of a patented peptide from liability.The device a single monoclonal antibody, but the claim in Proveris related to a research tool for essentially all monoclonal antibodies that the case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc v used in nasal spray pumps and inhalers.
Leavitt, the DC Circuit held that once the Spray characterisation plays an important The Federal Circuit in In re Alonso held FDA officially withdraws a patent claiming role in the FDA approval process, but the that where the researcher disclosed only a invention claimed in the patent is not itself Like the device in Proveris, the peptide in neurofibrosarcoma, the applicant’s disclosure In Teva Pharmaceuticals, the FDA delisted Merck was not subject to FDA approval.The Merck and Proveris cases can be distinguished Risperdal, from its patent listing database, and in that the Merck court determined that the soon after updated the electronic version of peptide was not a ‘research tool’ whereas the recognising any patent’s neurofibrosarcoma.
the Orange Book to reflect this change, but Innovasystems’ device is arguably a ‘research did not update the hardcopy versions. Two tool’. Given the close question, however, disclosure of a single monoclonal antibody months after the delisting,Teva submitted an did not constitute a representative number cautious when using patented research tools of species in the genus because two scientific certification directed to the ‘925 patent. The articles in evidence in the case indicated A road map for claiming the
Teva subsequently sued, arguing that Teva’s broadest patent protection
metastatic sites within a single patient.
for bioactive compounds
Researchers who are aware that there is a The need to file patent applications early great deal of heterogeneity in receptor sites from denying Teva’s para IV certification.
and often was the take home lesson for the The DC Circuit disagreed, holding that the biotech industry in the case of In re Alonso.
submit additional data for other species in plain requirements of the statute required a Biomedical researchers usually focus their the genus if they want to claim the entire certification to a patent that claimed a drug.
research on studying the bioactivity of a Because the patent was already delisted by the time Teva filed its application, no patent continuation-in-part patent applications.
well exhibit the same desired bioactivity or possibly enhanced activity. Therefore, the then the genus can usually be claimed with Congress closes is unknown, but delisting natural desire is to seek patent protection for foreseeable future for patent-holders and an the genus became more difficult in 2008.
issue that should push generic manufacturers In the case of In re Alonso, the researchers Delisting from the orange book
remains viable strategy
Columbia gave a boost to the strategy used R Joseph Trojan is a registered patent
attorney and trial lawyer with the
idiotypic monoclonal antibody secreted in a patents contained in the FDA Orange Book.
neurofibrosarcoma cells. The researcher’s particular patent any longer, it can block Informa Law publish a range of market-leading newsletters and magazines specialising in intellectual property law and business. For more information on the complete portfolio visit our website: www.ipworld.com

Source: http://www.trojanlawoffices.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/US-the-year-in-review.pdf