Justia Patents Opinion Summaries

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, concerning FDA approval of a drug that is biosimilar to an already-licensed biological “reference product,” 42 U.S.C. 262(k), treats submission of a biosimilar application as an “artificial” patent infringement. An applicant must provide its biosimilar application and manufacturing information to the reference product’s sponsor. The parties collaborate to identify patents for immediate litigation. Second phase litigation is triggered when the applicant gives the sponsor notice at least 180 days before commercially marketing the biosimilar. Amgen claims patents on methods of manufacturing and using filgrastim. Sandoz sought FDA approval to market a biosimilar, Zarxio, and notified Amgen that it had submitted an application, that it intended to market Zarxio immediately upon receiving FDA approval, and that it did not intend to provide application and manufacturing information. Amgen sued for patent infringement and asserted that Sandoz engaged in “unlawful” conduct under California law by failure to provide its application and manufacturing information and by notification of commercial marketing before obtaining FDA licensure. The FDA licensed Zarxio. Sandoz provided Amgen another notice of commercial marketing. The Supreme Court unanimously held that section 262(l)(2)(A) is not enforceable by injunction under federal law, but the Federal Circuit should determine whether a state-law injunction is available. Submitting an application constitutes artificial infringement; failing to disclose the application and manufacturing information does not. Section 262(l)(9)(C) provides a remedy for failure to turn over the application and manufacturing information, authorizing the sponsor, but not the applicant, to bring an immediate declaratory-judgment action, thus vesting in the sponsor the control that the applicant would otherwise have exercised over the scope and timing of the patent litigation. An applicant may provide notice under section 262(l)(8)(A) before obtaining FDA licensure. View "Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc." on Justia Law

Apicore owns, and Mylan Is the exclusive licensee of, the 992, 616, and 050 patents, which relate to isosulfan blue (ISB), a triarylmethane dye used to map lymph nodes. The 992 and 616 patents (together, “the process patents”) are directed to a process for preparing ISB by reacting isoleuco acid with silver oxide in a polar solvent, followed by reaction with a sodium solution. In response to Aurobindo’s FDA application to market a generic version of Myland’s drug, Lymphazurin®, Apricore and Myland obtained a preliminary injunction precluding Aurobindo from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the accused ISB product that allegedly infringes the patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed. While the district court’s “equivalents analysis” was deficient and there remains a substantial question concerning infringement, so that the court’s grant of a preliminary injunction based on the process patents constituted an abuse of discretion, the injunction stands under the 050 patent. View "Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd." on Justia Law

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act did not change the statutory meaning of “on sale” under 35 U.S.C. 102, in a case involving patents that were ready for patenting and subject to an invalidating contract for sale prior to the critical date of January 30, 2002. Teva had invoked the provision as a defense in a suit charging infringement based on Teva’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). The district court upheld, as valid, Helsinn’s patents, directed to intravenous formulations of palonosetron for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and rejected Teva’s “on sale” defense. In reversing, the Federal Circuit noted that the invention worked for its intended purpose, that the evidence that the formulation was ready for patenting was “overwhelming,” and that there was no tenable argument that, before the critical date, Helsinn was unable to file a patent application that met the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. The district court clearly erred by applying too demanding a standard. The completion of Phase III studies and final FDA approval are not pre-requisites for the invention here to be ready for patenting. View "Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The consolidated appeals involve allegations that the companies holding the patents for Lipitor and Effexor XR delayed entry into the market by generic versions of those drugs by engaging in an overarching monopolistic scheme that involved fraudulently procuring and enforcing the underlying patents and then entering into a reverse-payment settlement agreement with a generic manufacturer. In 2013, the Supreme Court recognized that reverse payment schemes can violate antitrust laws and that it is normally not necessary to litigate patent validity to answer the antitrust question. The district judge dismissed most of plaintiffs’ claims. The Third Circuit remanded after rejecting an argument that plaintiffs’ allegations required transfer of the appeals to the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from civil actions “arising under” patent law, 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1). Not all cases presenting questions of patent law necessarily arise under patent law; here, patent law neither creates plaintiffs’ cause of action nor is a necessary element to any of plaintiffs’ well-pleaded claims. The court remanded one of the Lipitor appeals, brought by a group of California pharmacists and involving claims solely under California law, for jurisdictional discovery and determination of whether remand to state court was appropriate. View "In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

Navartis’s 283 patent relates to a solid pharmaceutical composition suitable for oral administration, comprising a sphingosine-1 phosphate (S1P) receptor agonist and a sugar alcohol, which the patent explains is useful for the treatment of certain autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. According to the specification, S1P receptor agonists generally exhibit properties that make formulations suitable for oral administration of a solid composition difficult to create. However, “solid compositions comprising a sugar alcohol provide formulations which are particularly well suited to the oral administration of S1P receptor agonists." They also “provide a convenient means of systemic administration of S1P receptor agonists, do not suffer from the disadvantages of liquid formulations for injection or oral use, and have good physiocochemical and storage properties.” On inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all original claims of the 283 patent and proposed substitute claims unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board discussed independent grounds supporting the motivation to combine prior art, fingolimod and mannitol, in a solid oral composition. View "Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Limited" on Justia Law

Bivalirudin is a synthetic peptide used to prevent blood clotting in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Bivalirudin’s pharmacological properties were known before the filing of Medicines’ 727 and 343 patents and were covered by Medicines’ 404 patent, which expired in 2015. The claimed inventions of the 727 and 343 patents are directed to minimizing impurities in batches of bivalirudin, an active ingredient, typically distributed as a dry powder that must be compounded with a base before being administered to a patient as an intravenous injection. Medicines received FDA approval to market a base-compounded bivalirudin drug product in 2000, and has sold the approved product since 2001 under the tradename ANGIOMAX®, before the critical date of the 727-343 patents. Mylan submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application, seeking to market a generic version of ANGIOMAX. The district court held that the 343 patent was not infringed because Mylan did not satisfy the “efficient mixing” limitation of asserted claims and that the 727 patent was infringed because its asserted claims did not include an “efficient mixing” limitation. Without addressing the validity of the patents, the Federal Circuit reversed as to the 727 patent and affirmed as to the 343 patent. Both include a “batches” limitation that requires batch consistency, which, according to the patents, is achieved through efficient mixing. Efficient mixing is required by the asserted claims of both patents. View "The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc." on Justia Law

The 631 application, entitled “Glenoid Implant for Minimally Invasive Shoulder Replacement Surgery,” describes an invention related to “rotator cuff sparing procedures and associated devices for shoulder replacement surgery.” The application improves on the prior art by offering “simple and less invasive perpendicular access to the humeral and glenoid joint surfaces,” which “spares the rotator cuff tendons and allows for a quicker and more functional recovery.” The surgery described in the application involves two main steps. First, the surgeon removes “a minimal amount of bone from the peripheral surface of the glenoid”—a process called reaming. Second, the surgeon places an implant in the reamed cavity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that several claims were anticipated by prior art, 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The Federal Circuit reversed; the finding of anticipation was not supported by substantial evidence. View "In re: Chudik" on Justia Law

LAB’s 903 patent claims a method of “arresting or regressing” penile fibrosis, which can result in erectile dysfunction and penile deformation, by the long-term, daily administration of type 5 phosphodiesterase (PDE5) inhibitors. At Eli Lilly’s request, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board conducted inter partes review. The patent claimed priority from a 2002 Provisional Application. The Board first rejected LAB’s argument for the earlier priority date, construed three terms, and concluded that the claim limitation requiring the delivery of a dosage of up to 1.5 mg/kg/day for at least 45 days “would meet the claim requirement of a continuous, long-term regimen,” and that the combination of three prior references rendered the claims unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding two claim constructions erroneous and that the Board did not make factual findings as to whether there was an apparent reason to combine the references to treat penile fibrosis and whether a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success from such a combination. In a separate opinion, the court specifically addressed one prior reference, Whitaker, stating that it may “suggest” long-term daily treatment by noting the beneficial effects of daily treatment (better erectile response and decreased side effects), but that is not enough. Whitaker does not disclose the claimed treatment regimen with sufficient clarity to satisfy the demanding standard for anticipation. View "Eli Lilly & Co, v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute" on Justia Law

LAB’s 903 patent claims a method of “arresting or regressing” penile fibrosis, which can result in erectile dysfunction and penile deformation, by the long-term, daily administration of type 5 phosphodiesterase (PDE5) inhibitors. At Eli Lilly’s request, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board conducted inter partes review. The patent claimed priority from a 2002 Provisional Application. The Board first rejected LAB’s argument for the earlier priority date, finding that the specification of the provisional application did not disclose the dosage limitation, then construed: “an individual with at least one of penile tunical fibrosis and corporal tissue fibrosis”; “arresting or regressing the at least one of the penile tunical fibrosis and corporal tissue fibrosis”; and “continuous long-term regimen.” The Board concluded that the claim limitation requiring the delivery of a dosage of up to 1.5 mg/kg/day for at least 45 days “would meet the claim requirement of a continuous, long-term regimen,” and that the combination of three prior references rendered the claims unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding two claim constructions erroneous and that the Board did not make factual findings as to whether there was an apparent reason to combine the references to treat penile fibrosis and whether a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success from such a combination. View "Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co." on Justia Law

Shire sued Watson for infringing the 720 patent by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the FDA seeking to market a generic version of Shire’s drug, LIALDA®. The patent is directed to a controlled-release oral pharmaceutical composition of mesalamine used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases. The district court rejected Watson’s invalidity arguments that the patent lacked written description and enablement, and held that Watson infringed two claims. On appeal, and again after remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit stated that the matrix compositions are “limited by the Markush groups” added during prosecution “to overcome the examiner’s rejection of the claims as obvious” and that “the correct construction requires that the inner volume contain substances from the group described for the inner lipophilic matrix (which are all lipophilic substances), and that the outer volume separately contain substances from the group described for the outer hydrophilic matrix (which are all hydrophilic).” On remand, the district court concluded that Watson’s ANDA Product satisfied the “inner lipophilic matrix” and “outer hydrophilic matrix” limitations and satisfied the Markush limitations because the excipients falling outside the respective Markush groups were “unrelated” to the invention since they did not drive the water-affinity property of their respective matrices. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment of non-infringement. Watson’s ANDA Product does not satisfy the Markush group requirements. View "Shire Development, LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law