Posts Tagged: "drug patents"

Healthcare costs in the United States continue to rise, placing an ever-increasing burden on patients and government payer programs. Popular discourse blames patented drugs as the culprit for these rising costs. In a move that previously would have been unthinkable, policymakers have even called upon the Department of Health and Human Services to exercise a mechanism known as Bayh-Dole “march-in” rights, to break the patents on drugs that the private sector has spent billions developing, in order to lower their prices. But this fixation on patents as a major driver of America’s medical spend is misplaced.

Believe it or not, a recent op-ed in the Washington Post written by Robin Feldman took the position that pharmaceutical companies should charge prices for their drugs that would surely guarantee that they go bankrupt. An absurd position even for a law professor who is ideologically predisposed to an irrational hatred of patents, but precisely the position Feldman articulated. How someone as smart as a law professor does not understand basic business reality raises important questions about her intellectual honesty—or at the very least raises questions about whether she is truly an expert on this topic.

The National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), in conjunction with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), recently solicited public comments on the draft of “Measures For the Implementation of Early Resolution Mechanisms for Drug Patent Disputes (Trial)” (“Draft Measures”). The purpose of the Draft Measures is to establish an early resolution mechanism for drug patent disputes. The deadline for submission of comments is October 25, 2020.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Biogen MA, Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for Biogen. The New Jersey court had found no anticipation of Biogen’s patent claims, overturning a jury’s finding that the claims were anticipated by the prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision, which turned on the issue of applying a product-by-process novelty analysis to certain nested claim limitations, said that a reasonable jury could find the claims anticipated and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict.

Patent challenges are an indispensable part of the drug approval process under the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act (Hatch-Waxman). To gain early market access, multiple types of invention claims, ranging from compositions to method of use and from combinations to “kits”, are frequently challenged under the Hatch-Waxman provisions by abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) filers. However, challenges to claims for chemical compounds are quite rare compared to claims for other types of inventions. Though the overall approach for challenging any patent/claim remains broadly similar, a compound claim challenge involves a relatively different approach compare to other types of invention claims involved in the Hatch-Waxman context. The chief difference is the types of art that may be available for citation.

On June 1, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the agency was establishing a public docket for the receipt of public comments regarding the types of patent information published in the FDA’s Orange Book, a collection of FDA-approved drugs and their therapeutic equivalents designed to improve competition from generic drugmakers. While the request for comments only seeks early input on the subject, public responses could influence regulatory action that later changes the types of patents that a branded pharmaceutical manufacturer must disclose to inform generic drugmakers of their infringement liability risk.

On January 10, the U.S. District of Delaware held that Actavis’ generic version of Orexo’s opioid dependency treatment infringed an Orexo patent. The patent-at-issue in this order was U.S. Patent No. 8940330, titled Abuse-Resistant Pharmaceutical Composition for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence. This non-appealable infringement judgment prevents Actavis from commercializing its generic opioid dependency treatment until Orexo’s patent rights expire in September 2032. The judgment covers all dosage levels of the Actavis generic product.

The Hatch-Waxman Act and the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act are both forged from a noble ideal, grounded in a commitment to a robust and earnest patent system that rewards real innovation… By the power vested in them by specially-reserved patent laws, drug patents are a patent species of their own universe. They can have the economic power of nuclear warheads, in an industry built on an exclusivity model worth hundreds of billions of dollars, per year. We simply cannot afford to fill the silos of those warheads with patent waste that does not innovate or improve upon anything, but which can wreak economic and social havoc, while feeding the general public’s perception that all patents stink.

Critics of drug patents often claim that when initial drug patents expire, drug companies stuff their patent portfolios with “trivial” patents that unjustifiably extend their patent monopoly to keep the prices up.  This argument perpetuates common myths and misunderstandings that fail on several levels… In the last decade, large molecule biological drugs have come to the fore. They provide dramatic new treatments for some conditions but can be very expensive. It is difficult to develop inexpensive generic-type versions for biological drugs.

Among members of the news media, patents have been a popular whipping boy when contemplating why Americans pay higher drug prices relative to the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the Chinese national government extended the period of exclusivity on pharmaceutical patents from 20 years up to 25 years. While China makes moves to embrace further innovation in the pharmaceutical sector by extending exclusivity for drug developers, the United States has evidenced an incredible amount of skepticism regarding the activities of pharmaceutical patent owners trying to protect their property.

In 2017, U.S. district courts saw a total of 417 patent infringement suits related to ANDA filings made by drugmakers with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking to bring generic versions of brand-name pharmaceuticals to the U.S. market. This total number of ANDA cases was below recent highs set in 2014 (437 cases) and 2015 (475 cases) but it was also a significant increase over the 324 ANDA cases filed in 2016. Going back to 2009, 2017 saw the third-highest number of ANDA cases in a single year. The fact that ANDA litigation is rising is pretty consistent with the number of ANDA applications being received by the FDA. In 2017, the FDA approved a record number of ANDAs with 763 such approvals that year; the agency attributed this uptick to an increased number of agency hires.

The price-tag for non-innovative drug patents, such as these second-wave Restasis patents, is substantial. Indeed, one cannot help but question Allergan’s true motivations for attempting to evade PTAB scrutiny of these patents by reliance on Tribal Immunity based on its deal with the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. The PTAB, unlike the examiner corps, does have the ability to consider rebuttal expert testimony, and is thus not-so handicapped in its capacity to vet drug patents of questionable validity, with aplomb.

Thanks to a number of new Hepatitis C drugs (Sofosbuvir Ledipasvir, Ladispavir) the disease is curable for many patients. While this is an undeniable victory for patients and payers, the innovators who made this possible have been villainized and undermined. At a time when the public health community should celebrate the tremendous health benefits these breakthrough drugs have brought to patients around the world, they are instead organizing to ensure the destruction of the incentives that made these drugs a reality. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2% – 3% of the world’s population is living with hepatitis C. The World Health Organization states that globally an estimated 71 million people have chronic hepatitis C infection and approximately 399,000 people die each year from the disease.

AbbVie’s maneuver worked like clockwork to induce regulatory gridlock, which prevented generic competition and kept the company’s profits high at public expense, for years. Fortunately, the FTC would have none of it. The agency filed suit against AbbVie in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2014, accusing the company of illegal monopolization under the antitrust laws. The gravamen of the FTC’s complaint was that AbbVie wrongfully filed objectively-baseless sham litigations, to block generic competition.