Posts Tagged: "drug patents"

Ever since the Supreme Court decided KSR v. Teleflex, it has been appropriate to reject a patent claim because it was obvious to try. If twice the dose intravenously, half as often works, why wouldn’t the highly-educated person of skill in the art – who would hold an M.D. or Ph.D. level education with years of experience – not be tempted to try the same thing subcutaneously? And if they do try it and the results are as expected that should mean, under KSR, that the claimed invention is obvious. Somehow in the pharmaceutical arts KSR does not get applied that way.

Nothing in my own experience leads me to believe that the PTO applies a lower anticipation or obviousness standard to pharmaceuticals, and I expect this would be news to my colleagues in the industry too. I do, however, often get questions from policymakers, journalists, and others who have been misinformed and led to believe that pharmaceutical companies are re-patenting old drugs to keep prices high, and that our industry is spending “too much” effort on trivial modifications to old medicines rather than creating new ones. Be assured – there is no such thing as “re-patenting,” and our industry is spending plenty on true innovation – but Dr. Michelsohn is certainly raising a fashionable complaint. Public debate by and large seems to have accepted that any given smartphone model is covered by hundreds of patents, but when a complex pharmaceutical product is covered by more than one patent there’s immediate scrutiny and concern.

If a drug company plants a more than 100-patent thicket to protect market exclusivity, then it had better be able to justify why it should deserve the cumulative protection of patent term. Yes, the patent on the original formulation will fall into the public domain and may be capable of being made by generics long before the last of the patents expire, but often-times those follow on “innovations” are the kind of trivial advances that ordinarily shouldn’t support a fresh patent.

The issues I will be watching in 2018 other than Oil States are as follows: (1) What does the new Director of the USPTO do with respect to reforming the PTAB? (2) Will the USPTO adopt a code of judicial ethics for PTAB judges? (3) Will the U.S. drop out of the top 10 countries for patent protection in the annual U.S. Chamber IP Index? (4) How will the Federal Circuit resolve Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and the assertion of sovereign immunity by Indian Tribes? (5) Will the Federal Circuit continue its unprecedented disposition of cases without an opinion by relying on Rule 36 summary affirmance? (6) Will Conservative groups become even more vocal advocates of a strong patent system?

While the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has not been friendly to patent owners, to put it mildly, the PTAB has not been inhospitable to pharma patent owners according to a report issued in mid-June by BiologicsHQ, a searchable database of drugs, patents, and companies involved in PTAB inter partes review (IPR) proceedings developed by attorneys at Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto. The BiologicsHQ report shows a much different story in terms of drug patents facing IPR challenges at the PTAB. The report looks at a combination of data sources, including the Orange Book, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) listed biologics and statistics on America Invents Act (AIA) trials published by the PTAB. The BiologicsHQ report draws the conclusion that, despite widespread concerns about the PTAB operating as a patent death squad in IPRs, “such concern is not justified for drug patents.”

IP-skeptics charge that these inventions are little more than a way for pharmaceutical companies to cynically prolong patent life and maximize profits, without providing any meaningful innovation. This rather simplistic view misunderstands how the patent system works, and the role of patents in incentivizing drug discovery and development. In reality, many of today’s most significant medicines owe their existence to the ability of medical innovators to secure patents for novel new forms and new uses of existing treatments.

Although Dupixent hasn’t been granted FDA approval as of yet, the drug has made it further than Amgen’s AMG-317, the code name for Amgen’s own IL-4 inhibitor developed during the 2000s, which failed in phase 2 clinical trials… The major impetus behind this suit was Sanofi-Aventis and Regeneron’s discovery that Amgen hired litigation counsel to assert the ‘487 patent and is also working on retaining experts. The plaintiffs believe that the only likely target for any potential Amgen infringement suit asserting the ‘487 patent would target Dupixent, “the only IL-4 inhibitor expected to come to market in the near future.”

A patent is not the only path to exclusivity. In fact, the FDA characterizes patents and “exclusivity” separately. “Exclusivity” refers to exclusive marketing rights granted by the FDA upon approval and was designed to promote a balance between new drug innovation and generic drug competition. Some differences are that patents can be issued or expire at any time – before, during or after FDA approval– while exclusivity attaches upon approval of a drug product. Further, some drugs have both patent and exclusivity protection while others have just one or neither… Make no mistake, it would be tremendously unwise to proceed sans patents. No patent means the generic can enter the market as soon as the FDA exclusivity period expires, and having a patent can extend the exclusivity period to the end of the patent term, often years later.

On Thursday, October 6th, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a 79-page notice in the Federal Register regarding new rules surrounding Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) and 505(b)(2) new drug applications. Many provisions of the new rules affect information that must be submitted by applicants regarding patents which could affect the outcome of applications for new generic versions of drug treatments.

If the UN Secretary General and the members of his “High Level Panel on Access to Medicines” thought the State Department was bluffing when it warned against their attempt to make intellectual property the fall guy for the lack of health care in poor countries, they were rudely awakened Friday afternoon. Disdaining diplomatic niceties, less than two days after the UN report issued, State bluntly replied in a statement titled “U.S. Disappointed Over Fundamentally Flawed Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines.” Compounding the pain, the same day five prominent university associations issued a joint paper taking the report apart. Being directly and publicly rebuked in this manner is a new experience for the Secretary General and his minions– but one they richly deserve.

The vast majority of medicines found on WHO’s model list of essential medicines are off-patent according to information published by the World International Property Organization (WIPO). As of 2013, 95 percent of the 375 pharmaceutical compounds on that year’s MLEM were off-patent, indicating a high likelihood that generic equivalents of treatments are available. Going back to the early 2000s, the percentage of essential medicine on WHO’s MLEM which are off-patent has consistently been between 90 to 95 percent. Thus, it seems clear that the patent system has served its intended purpose: To incentivize the creation of important, innovative, even live saving products that society can reap the benefits from long after the exclusivity of the patent has expired.

Nome, Alaska and San Juan, Puerto Rico are both home to a federal courthouse where, ostensibly, under the recent Acorda Therapeutics holding and subsequent court decisions, a generic pharmaceutical company will be subject to personal jurisdiction if they file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 817 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that an ANDA filer opens themselves up to nationwide personal jurisdiction merely by virtue of filing an ANDA application. This is a broad holding that, in effect, subjects a generic company to personal jurisdiction in any forum that has a district court.

EpiPen’s eruptive timing was important. Had Congress been in town, lawmakers would have filled the front pages with populist blather. Had Mylan been less forthcoming about the retail drug supply chain, the press would have been less likely to look into its composition. Had Mylan’s CEO not been a sitting Senator’s daughter, gossipy Hill reporters would have been bored. If health insurer withdrawals from ACA exchanges had not led to higher consumer costs and rates to match, and most important, if anaphylaxis did not simultaneously threaten the lives so many children and bust the back-to-school budgets of more than 15 million middle American families, the multi component drug pricing issues might have been buried on news papers’ back pages. EpiPen pulled these issues out of hiding into the light of public concern where oversimplified self-serving solutions tend to wilt. The fact is we have been treated to a highly publicized health pricing tutorial using a live case study to learn about the many drivers of retail drug pricing.

The problem is that the government is standing in the way of these competitive autoinjectors getting into the hands of the patients who need them. For example, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries has a competitive autoinjector. However, in March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected Teva’s application to bring its competitive autoinjector to patients… While Mylan, like most large pharmaceutical manufacturers, has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and political campaign contributions, there is no evidence of any illegal quid pro quo. Mylan is simply acting in the interests of its shareholders. It is the system itself, not Mylan, that is corrupt.

A consistent charge against the patent system is that it denies the poor access to critical medicines. This belief led the UN Secretary General to launch his High Level Panel on Access to Medicines that is supported by groups like Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM)… As to UN Secretary General’s claim of a “policy incoherence” between IP rights and access to medicines, without the patent system there will be a lot fewer drugs to access here or abroad. That’s a thought he might ponder.