Weekly Summaries Distributed November 13, 2015
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a condition defined and diagnosed by its constellation of symptoms. A patient’s symptoms define the type of IBS with which a patient is diagnosed. Prometheus sued, alleging infringement of the 770 patent, which claims a method of treatment for IBS-D utilizing alosetron (brand name Lotronex), and has a priority date of 1997. The The district court found the claims invalid as obvious over the prior art or, in the alternative, invalid on grounds of obviousness-type double patenting over the now-expired 800 patent (issued in 1994). The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding the claims of the 770 patent invalid as obvious over the 800 patent and other prior art.
| ||||||||
Momenta Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharma. USA, Inc.
Enoxaparin, an anticoagulant that helps prevent blood clots, was approved for U.S. marketing in 1993 under the name Lovenox. In 2010, Momentaed market a generic version of enoxaparin. Momenta is also the assignee of the 886 patent, directed to a process used to ensure each batch of generic enoxaparin meets quality standards. Teva, another generic manufacturer, sought to enter the enoxaparin market. It does not manufacture enoxaparin, but sources it from an Italian company that manufactures, analyzes, tests, packages, and labels Teva’s generic version of enoxaparin. Momenta sued Teva for infringement, asserting that it intended to market in the U.S. an enoxaparin product that was manufactured using a process covered by the 886 patent. The court found Teva’s conduct did not infringe because it fell within the safe harbor in 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1); it is not infringement for a party to use a patented invention “solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs.” The court also rejected Momenta’s contention that Teva’s U.S. sales constitute infringement under section 271(g), which prohibits selling within the U.S. a product which is made by a process patented in the U.S. The Federal Circuit affirmed as to noninfringement under 271(g), but vacated the “safe harbor” determination.
| ||||||||
Cubist Pharma., Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.
Cubist Pharmaceuticals owns five follow-on patents that relate to the antibiotic daptomycin, which it sells under the name Cubicin. Hospira sought authorization to sell a generic version of Cubist’s daptomycin product, which led Cubist to file suit charging Hospira with patent infringement (Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. 355 and 35 U.S.C. 156 and 271(e)(2). The district court held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that some of the asserted claims of four of Cubist’s patents were invalid for anticipation and all the asserted claims of those patents sdfd invalid for obviousness. As for the fifth patent, the court held the two asserted claims not invalid and ruled that Hospira’s proposed products infringed those claims.
| ||||||||
Illinois Social Media Law, Conservative News, Chicago & National Politics
Vote Trump 2016 !
Trump 2016
Showing posts with label Drugs & Biotech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drugs & Biotech. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2015
Drugs & Biotech
Friday, July 24, 2015
Drugs & Biotech
Weekly Summaries Distributed July 23, 2015
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
G.D. Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharma., Inc.
On the day the RE 048 patent issued, Pfizer filed suit against five generic drug manufacturers, alleging infringement. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment in part in part, finding that the RE 048 patent was not a valid reissue patent, because Pfizer’s asserted error of prosecuting a prior patent application as a continuation-in-part, rather than as a divisional, was not correctable by reissue under section 251. The court further found that the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. 121 did not apply to the RE 048 patent, and that the relevant claims of the RE 048 patent were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting in light of an earlier patent. A final judgment of invalidity was entered against Pfizer. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The applications from which the two patents issued do not share “common lineage in the divisional chain,” they are not derived from the same restriction requirement. Restriction requirements (1994 and 1997) were not imposed on the same compound, composition, and method-of-use claims.
| ||||||||
King Drug Co of Florence Inc, v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
In earlier litigation, Teva challenged the validity and enforceability of GSK’s patents on lamotrigine, Lamictal’s active ingredient. Teva was first to file an FDA application, alleging invalidity or nonenforceability, and seeking approval to produce generic lamotrigine tablets and chewable tablets for markets alleged to be annually worth $2 billion and $50 million,. If the patent suit resulted in a determination of invalidity or nonenforceability—or a settlement incorporating such terms—Teva would be statutorily entitled to a 180- day period of market exclusivity, during which time only it and GSK could produce generic lamotrigine tablets. After the judge ruled the patent’s main claim invalid, the companies settled; Teva would end its patent challenge in exchange for early entry into the chewables market and GSK’s commitment not to produce its own, “authorized generic” Lamictal tablets. Plaintiffs, direct purchasers of Lamictal, sued under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 & 2, claiming that the agreement was a “reverse payment” intended to induce Teva to abandon the patent fight and eliminate the risk of competition in the lamotrigine tablet market for longer than the patent would otherwise permit. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit vacated, citing Supreme Court precedent, holding that unexplained large payments from the holder of a drug patent to an alleged infringer to settle litigation of the patent’s validity or infringement (reverse payment) can violate antitrust laws.
| ||||||||
The Medicines Co v. Hospira, Inc.
TMC owns patents relating to the drug bivalirudin, a synthetic peptide anti-coagulant. TMC sells the drug for injection under the Angiomax® brand and, from 1997 to 2006, purchased pharmaceutical batches from BV Laboratories. In 2005, BV created batches of bivalirudin with levels of impurity that exceeded the FDA approved maximum. TMC hired a consultant, who discovered that certain methods of adding a pH-adjusting solution during the compounding process minimize the impurity. In 2008, TMC filed two patent applications, describing this discovery. A year before filing these applications, TMC hired BV to prepare batches of bivalirudin using the patented method. Each was released to TMC for commercial packaging. In 2010, TMC sued Hospira, alleging infringement by Hospira’s ANDA filings. The district court found the patents not infringed and not invalid as obvious, indefinite, or under the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), which applies when, before the critical date, the claimed invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale and was ready for patenting. The court found that the claimed invention was ready for patenting but not commercially offered for sale. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the batches prepared by BV were sold to TMC and not prepared primarily for experimental purposes.
| ||||||||
Anderson v. K-V Pharma. Co.
Plaintiffs acquired shares of K-V Pharmaceutical stock during the period in which the company launched and marketed Makena, its new prescription drug, designed to reduce the risk of pre-term labor for at-risk pregnant women. It had acquired rights to the drug from the FDA, under the Orphan Drug Act, 21 U.S.C. 360. In a putative class action, the plaintiffs alleged that K-V and three of its officers made materially false or misleading statements or omissions related to the product launch. The district court dismissed, holding the challenged statements were protected by the safe-harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b), and that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter under the PSLRA. The district court also denied the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend the complaint as it related to allegations from confidential witnesses. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. K-V’s statements fell within the PSLRA’s safe-harbor provision as forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language and are not actionable as a basis for a securities fraud action.
| ||||||||
Amgen, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), 124 Stat. 119, an abbreviated biologics license application (aBLA) requires proof that a product is “biosimilar” to an approved reference product, plus information regarding the FDA’s determination that the reference product is safe. ABLA approval may not take effect until 12 years after licensing of the reference product. BPCIA allows patent infringement suits before approval: the applicant provides confidential access to its aBLA within 20 days after the FDA accepts its application. The parties negotiate a list of patents that would be subject to an immediate infringement action. Under subsection 262(l), the applicant gives notice at least 180 days before commercial marketing, to allow a suit for preliminary injunction. If the applicant discloses information, neither may bring suit based on non-listed patents before notice of commercial marketing. Amgen has marketed Neupogen® since 1991. Sandoz filed an aBLA, for a Neupogen biosimilar. Sandoz notified Amgen that intended to launch its biosimilar upon approval and that it “opted not to provide” its aBLA, so that Amgen was entitled to sue under section 262(l). In 2015, the FDA approved Sandoz’s aBLA. Sandoz gave a “further notice” of commercial marketing. Amgen sued, asserting state law claims of unfair competition based on BPCIA violations; conversion for wrongful use of Amgen’s approved license; and patent infringement. The court held that BPCIA permits an applicant not to disclose its aBLA; that such a decision alone does not permit the reference product owner to obtain relief; and that the applicant may give notice of commercial marketing before FDA approval. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of Amgen’s state law claims, but otherwise vacated and directed the court to consider the patent infringement claims.
| ||||||||
Friday, May 15, 2015
Drugs & Biotech
Weekly Summaries Distributed May 15, 2015
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharma., Inc.
Elan marketed metaxalone, a muscle relaxant, under the brand-name Skelaxin. Years after Skelaxin’s approval, Elan learned that another company conducted in vivo bioequivalence fasting studies and in vitro dissolution tests on metaxalone and that, based on the results, the FDA proposed to change the designation of metaxalone from “non bioproblem” to “bioproblem.” Elan initiated a study and observed a significant effect of food on bioavailability. Elan petitioned the FDA to require both fed and fasting data for any abbreviated new drug application for a generic version of Skelaxin and to revise its product label. The FDA granted both. Elan obtained patents based on its bioavailability data, which were later invalidated in light of prior art. Classen’s 472 patent is directed to a method for accessing and analyzing data on a commercially available drug to identify a new use of that drug, and commercializing that new use. Classen alleged that Elan infringed that patent when it studied the effect of food on Skelaxin’s bioavailability, used the data to identify a new use, and commercialized that use. The court entered summary judgment of noninfringement, finding Elan protected by the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1), for activities “reasonably related to the submission of information” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. During ex parte reexamination of the 472 patent, the PTO cancelled 107 of the 137 originally issued claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to the 271(e)(1) exemption, but remanded an allegation that activities that occurred after the FDA submissions infringed the 472 patent and were not exempt.
| ||||||||
Friday, May 08, 2015
Drugs & Biotech
Weekly Summaries Distributed May 8, 2015
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Takeda Pharma., U.S.A. v. Hikma Am., Inc.
Takeda owns several asserted patents that cover several methods of administering colchicine products to treat gout. Colchicine itself, which has been used for centuries, is not covered by Takeda’s patents. Takeda has patents directed to treating acute gout flares and others directed to methods for administering colchicine for prophylaxis of gout in patients who are concomitantly taking certain drug inhibitors known as “CYP3A4” and “P-gp” inhibitors. In 2010, Hikma sought FDA approval of a colchicine product for prophylaxis of gout flares. It submitted an New Drug Application under the Hatch Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2). In 2014, the FDA granted Hikma approval to market its Mitigare colchicine capsule. Hikma launched Mitigare, and Takeda filed suit, asserting induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) based on Hikma’s labeling of the Mitigare product. Hikma planned on launching an authorized generic version of Mitigare in October 2014. The district court granted Takeda’s request for a temporary restraining order, but later denied a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Takeda acknowledged that evidence of mere knowledge of infringing uses is not sufficient and did not establish a probability of success on the issue of infringement.
| ||||||||
Friday, April 24, 2015
Drugs & Biotech
Weekly Summaries Distributed April 24, 2015
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Reckis v. Johnson & Johnson
When Samantha Reckis was seven years old, she developed toxic epidermal necrolysis, a life-threatening skin disorder, after receiving multiple doses of Children’s Motrin, an over-the-counter medication with ibuprofen as its active ingredient. Plaintiffs, Samantha and her parents, sued the manufacturer and marketer of Children’s Motrin and its parent company, alleging that Samantha developed TEN as a result of being exposed to ibuprofen in the Children’s Motrin and that the warning label on the medication’s bottle rendered the product defective because it failed to warn consumers about the serious risk of developing a life-threatening disease from it. A jury found in favor of Plaintiffs and awarded Samantha a total of $50 million in compensatory damages and each of Samantha’s parents $6.5 million for loss of consortium. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ claim of failure to warn was not preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; (2) a pharmacologist who offered the causation evidence essential to Plaintiffs’ case was qualified to testify as to specific medical causation, and the testimony was reliable and admissible; and (3) the damages awarded to each of the plaintiffs were not grossly excessive or unsupported by the record.
| ||||||||
Madel v. Dep't of Justice
Madel sued the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration for a response to Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requests that sought information on oxycodone transactions in Georgia by five private companies. DEA withheld some documents as confidential commercial information. The district court granted summary judgment to DEA, finding it produced all non-exempt information. The court denied declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney fees. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. Rejecting a claim that DEA did not justify withholding the five documents under FOIA Exemption 4, the court concluded that DEA showed that substantial competitive harm was likely. DEA did not make “barren assertions” that the documents were exempt, but linked each document to identifiable competitive harms. The court remanded for consideration of FOIA’s segregability requirement. DEA did not show “with reasonable specificity why documents withheld pursuant to a valid exemption cannot be further segregated.” Its Declaration does not address how disclosure of the data from, for example, 2007, leads to the proffered substantial competitive harms of a competitor “target[ing] specific markets” or “forecast[ing] potential business of new locations.”
| ||||||||
Friday, April 17, 2015
Drugs & Biotech
.jpg)
Weekly Summaries Distributed April 17, 2015
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Sidney Hillman Health Ctr. of Rochester v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
From 1998 to 2012 Abbott marketed the anticonvulsant medication Depakote for applications that had not been FDA-approved (off-label uses). Physicians may prescribe drugs for off-label uses, but pharmaceutical companies are generally prohibited from marketing drugs for those same applications. Qui tam actions were filed under the False Claims Act. In 2009, Abbott disclosed in an SEC filing that the Department of Justice was investigating its marketing. Abbott pleaded guilty to illegally promoting Depakote from 2001 through 2006 and agreed to pay $1.6 billion to settle the criminal and qui tam actions. Employee benefits funds filed suit 15 months later, alleging that Abbott misrepresented Depakote’s safety and efficacy for off-label uses, paid kickbacks to physicians, established and funded intermediary entities to promote the drug for off-label uses, and concealed its role in these activities, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court dismissed, finding that the statute of limitations for the RICO claim began to run in 1998, when the funds initially reimbursed a prescription for off-label use. The court refused to toll the limitations period until the guilty plea, finding that Abbott’s concealment efforts were not designed to hinder potential lawsuits. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that dismissal was premature without an opportunity for discovery into when a reasonable fund should have known about its injuries from off-label marketing.
| ||||||||
Friday, March 06, 2015
Drugs & Biotech
Weekly Summaries Distributed March 6, 2015
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v Nuvasiive, Inc.
Warsaw owns the 973 patent, which claims oversized spinal implants, and the 933 patent, which claims methods and devices for retracting tissue to create a working channel for minimally invasive spinal surgery. NuVasive owns the 236 patent, which relates to neuromonitoring during surgery. Warsaw sued NuVasive, alleging infringement; NuVasive counterclaimed, asserting infringement. A jury found that the asserted claims of the 973 patent were not invalid (infringement was not in dispute), that the asserted claims of the 933 patent were infringed under the doctrine of equivalents (validity was not in dispute), and that the asserted claims of the 236 patent were infringed (validity was not in dispute), and awarded damages for each. The district court denied motions for JMOL or a new trial; denied Warsaw’s requests for supplemental damages and a permanent injunction; and set ongoing royalty rates. The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to invalidity and infringement of all three patents, but remanded for a new trial on damages with respect to the 973 and 933 patents. On remand, Warsaw will be limited to a reasonable royalty and cannot recover lost profits.
| ||||||||
Friday, January 16, 2015
Drugs & Biotech
Weekly Summaries Distributed January 16, 2015
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
The application from which the 135 patent issued (28 years later) was filed in 1974. The patent relates to prosthetic vascular grafts made of highly-expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), consisting of solid nodes of PTFE connected by thin PTFE fibrils. The graft formed by ePFTE is homogeneously porous: a structure that allows uniform cell regrowth to establish a firm integration of the graft into the body. The different claims of the patent are directed to grafts made of ePTFE with varying intermodal distances, which are also called fibril lengths. It is sold by Gore under as “Gore-Tex.” In 2003, BPV and Dr. Goldfarb sued Gore for infringement. A jury found the patent valid and that Gore willfully infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed in 2012, but granted rehearing and vacated for the limited purpose of addressing willfulness, enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. On remand, the district court again found that Gore, as a “reasonable litigant,” could not have realistically expected its defenses to succeed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that neither BPV nor Goldfarb had standing to sue for infringement and holding that Gore’s position was not susceptible to a reasonable conclusion that the patent was invalid on inventorship grounds.
| ||||||||
Friday, December 19, 2014
Drugs & Biotech
Weekly Summaries Distributed December 19, 2014
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
Promega Corp. v. Life Tech. Corp.
The patents at issue relate DNA testing, specifically to multiplex amplification of short tandem repeat (STR) loci and claim methods or kits for simultaneously determining the alleles present in a set of STR loci from DNA samples, comprising: obtaining a DNA sample; selecting a set of loci of the DNA sample to amplify, including at least the specific loci recited in the claim; co-amplifying the selected loci in a multiplex amplification reaction; and evaluating the amplified alleles to determine the number of STR present at each loci. The district court entered judgment that the asserted claims were not invalid for lack of enablement and obviousness and that certain accused products did not infringe either the Promega patents the Tautz patent, vacating a verdict of damages and willful infringement. The Federal Circuit held that LifeTech was not licensed for all uses of the asserted patents under an agreement with Promega and, therefore, reversed with respect to infringement (under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1)), and remanded for determination of damages. The Federal Circuit held that the asserted claims of the Promega patents are invalid for lack of enablement.
| ||||||||
Townsend v. Bayer HealthCare Pharm. Inc.
Townsend worked as an Arkansas pharmaceutical sales representative for Bayer, selling Mirena, a contraceptive device. Townsend visited physicians, including Dr. Shrum. Townsend learned Shrum was importing from Canada a version of Mirena that was not FDA-approved, at half the cost of the approved version. Shrum had submitted Medicaid claims at the same rate as the approved version and bragged about $50,000 in extra profit. Townsend sought guidance from his superiors. Bayer told Townsend not get involved. Townsend called the Medicaid Fraud Hotline, although he feared losing his job. Shrum was charged with Medicaid fraud. Meanwhile, Bayer changed its method of reimbursing sales expenses. Not understanding the change, Townsend’s wife spent funds intended for those expenses, causing Townsend’s account to be closed temporarily. Although Townsend's account had been reactivated, Bayer fired him, claiming his closed account prevented him doing his job. Townsend sued, citing anti-retaliation provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h).). A jury awarded Townsend back pay, doubled to $642,746, and $568,000 in emotional distress damages. The court denied front pay and ordered Bayer to reinstate Townsend. The Eighth Circuit affirmed on all issues except the emotional distress damage award and remanded to allow Townsend the option of accepting a remittitur of $300,000, or a new trial on emotional distress damages.
| ||||||||
Univ. of Ut. Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
Plaintiffs own patents relating to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, mutations of which are linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. In prior litigation, the Supreme Court held that claims of one of the patents were drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter because the isolated DNA strands were natural phenomena. Generic competitors entered the market for kits to test for susceptibility to particular kinds of cancer. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, alleging infringement of 66 claims across 15 patents. The district court denied a preliminary injunction. The four composition of matter claims on appeal are directed to primers, which are “short, synthetic, single-stranded DNA molecule[s] that bind specifically to . . . intended target nucleotide sequence[s].” The court held these were likely patent ineligible because they claim “products of nature.” The method claims on appeal involve comparisons between the wild-type BRCA sequences with the patient’s BRCA sequences. The court reasoned that these were likely ineligible because the only “inventive concepts” are the patent-ineligible naturally occurring BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequences themselves; the other steps are conventional activities, uniformly employed by those working with DNA. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
| ||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)