Weekly Patent Litigation Round-up

Weekly Patent Litigation Round-up

Federal Circuit Won’t Restore Merck’s $2.5 Billion Patent Win Over Gilead

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has decided not to restore Merck’s historic $2.5 billion patent win over Gilead in a hepatitis C drug dispute. Merck and its subsidiary Idenix Pharmaceuticals sued Gilead in 2013 alleging that its hepatitis C treatments Sovaldi and Harvoni infringed on a patent Idenix had for treating hepatitis C. The case went to trial in December 2016 and a jury ruled in Merck’s favor, awarding the drugmaker $2.5 billion — the largest patent award ever. A federal judge threw out the verdict in 2018 finding that the patent was invalid. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the judge’s ruling, agreeing that the patent was invalid for “lack of written description” of how the invention worked…

6 things readers should know about Liconsa v. Boehringer Ingelheim

Our friends from the EPLAW Patent Blog recently published an interesting blog commenting on the judgment of 29 March 2019 from the Court of Appeal of Barcelona (Section 15) where, among other aspects, the requirements for requesting the limitation of a European patent before the Spanish Patents and Trademarks Office (“SPTO”) were discussed. As explained in such blog, the Court came to the conclusion that the limited patent published by the SPTO was not enforceable because the judicial authorization foreseen in article 105.4 of the new Patents Act had not been obtained. For the readers’ benefit, it will be helpful to remember that, according to that article 105 “4. If judicial proceedings on the validity of the patent are pending and without prejudice to the provisions of article 120, the request for limitation, addressed to the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office, must be authorized by the Judge or Court that handles the proceedings….

Gilead vs. Dutch Patent Office (tenofovir / emtricitabine), District Court of The Hague 30 October 2019

The plaintiff in this matter, Gilead Sciences Inc. (“Gilead”), markets a medicinal product under the name Truvada. As many European patent practitioners will know, this product consists of a combination of the active ingredients tenofovir dispoproxil and emtricitabine. According to its SmPC, Truvada is used in combination with other antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV. Gilead was the patentee of the – meanwhile expired – patent EP 0 915 894 B1 titled ‘Nucleotide Analogs’ (“EP 894”). The compound mentioned in claim 25 of this patent concerns tenofovir disoproxil. Gilead has applied for a supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for this medicinal product on the basis of the SPC Regulation with the Dutch Patent Office. Gilead based its SPC application on the basic patent EP 894..

Roche’s Chugai claims Alexion co-opted its patented tech in building Ultomiris

Alexion has a lot riding on the launch for Ultomiris, its long-acting follow-up to Soliris. But Roche’s Chugai says the new med is built on its own patented drug-delivery technology—and it’s suing to stop the new launch in its tracks. Chugai filed a lawsuit in Delaware federal court alleging Alexion deliberately infringed its patent on the technology that cuts Ultomiris’ typical dosing to once every eight weeks from Soliris’ biweekly schedule. Both drugs are C5 inhibitors designed to treat certain rare diseases. Chugai developed and patented technology that “extends the half-life of an antibody in blood plasma, thereby improving the duration of time in which the antibody binds and neutralizes target antigens,” the lawsuit states…

Nuvo Pharmaceuticals™ Announces United States District Court Denies Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Motion for Summary Judgment of Nuvo’s ‘996 and ‘920 VIMOVO Patents

MISSISSAUGA, ON, Nov. 11, 2019 /CNW/ – Nuvo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nuvo or the Company) (TSX:NRI; OTCQX:NRIFF), a Canadian focused healthcare company with global reach and a diversified portfolio of commercial products, today announced that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. (DRL).  As a result, the patent infringement litigation against DRL, involving Nuvo Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) DAC’s (Nuvo Ireland) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,858,996 and 9,161,920 (the ‘996 and ‘920 patents), will continue. The parties have mutually agreed on a pre-trial litigation schedule with the court through to April 2021.  The term of the ‘996 and ‘920 patents extends to May 31, 2022.…

Allergan Agrees to Pay $750M to Settle Alzheimer’s Drug Lawsuit

Allergan will pay $750 million to settle lawsuits related to their Namenda Alzheimer’s drug. The settlement will resolve a class-action lawsuit alleging that the Ireland-based company attempted to prevent or delay the entry of generic competitors. The lawsuit came after the New York attorney general won a settlement that made similar claims. The trial was slated to begin at the end of October. The lawsuit claimed that in 2014, Allergan tried to prevent access to lower-cost generics of its Namenda product by requiring patients to switch to a longer-acting and more expensive version of the drug: Namenda XR. The practice is known as “product hopping” or “hard switch.”…


Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. By using the blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice on author's or on his company's behalf.

Copyrights 2023 Pharma IP Circle. All Rights Reserved