Posts Tagged: "Novartis"

SCOTUS Denial of Novartis Petition for Cert Returns Focus Toward ‘Procedural Insanity’ at the Federal Circuit

On April 17, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by pharmaceutical developer Novartis seeking to overturn a decision on rehearing by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that invalidated patent claims covering the blockbuster multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment, Gilenya. The cert denial leaves in place a CAFC decision derided by commentators as “procedural insanity” and increases the focus upon certain machinations at the appellate court bearing the fingerprints of Chief Judge Kimberly Moore.

Novartis Asks SCOTUS to Rein in CAFC and Ninth Circuit Approach to Panel Rehearing Decisions

Last week, Novartis Pharmaceuticals followed through on its  September 2022 promise that it would appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June 2022 decision invalidating its patent for a dosing regimen for its multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya to the U.S. Supreme Court, after the CAFC denied its request to rehear the case.

Novartis to Appeal CAFC’s ‘Unprecedented’ U-Turn in Ruling on Multiple Sclerosis Drug Claims to SCOTUS

Novartis Pharmaceuticals announced today that it will appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June decision invalidating its patent for a dosing regimen for its multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya to the U.S. Supreme Court, after the CAFC denied its request to rehear the case. The CAFC in June vacated a different three-judge panel’s January opinion upholding Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405. In the original ruling, Chief Judge Moore had dissented from the majority; in the rehearing, Moore authored the opinion vacating the January decision, with Judge Linn dissenting.

Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Term Extension for Novartis Drug

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision finding the ‘229 patent valid, unexpired, enforceable, and infringed, and granting an injunction until February 2019. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the ‘229 patent’s five-year term extension pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 156 was valid, even though it effectively extended the term of a related patent. The Court also held that the ‘229 patent was not invalid based on obviousness-type double patenting because obviousness-type double patenting cannot invalidate a patent which has received a valid term extension. Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, No. 2017-2284, (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) (Before Moore, Chen, and Hughes, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the court by Chen, Circuit Judge).

Novartis acquires French radiopharmaceutical firm for oncology drug after losing patent protection for Gleevec

Novartis has agreed to acquire French radiopharmaceutical firm Advanced Accelerator Applications (AAA) in a deal which values AAA at $3.9 billion USD. The deal, funded through short- and long-term debt, adds the radioligand therapy (RDL) known as Lutathera to the Novartis pipeline. This drug, approved for use in the European Union and currently undergoing trials for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is used in the treatment of patients suffering from neuroendocrine tumors.

FDA approval of Teflaro puts Allergan’s portfolio of anti-infectives into focus

Treatments for infectious diseases is one area where Allergan is looking to buoy its fortunes in the coming years. The first quarter of 2016 was a strong one for Allergan, which saw its overall revenues increase by 48 percent when compared to 2015’s first quarter; revenue for Allergan’s branded pharmaceutical divisions grew by 71 percent year-over-year. The company’s infectious disease division was not its most profitable and yet it saw the greatest amount of growth compared to the previous year. Teflaro entered the Allergan portfolio thanks to a series of acquisitions in the biopharma realm over the past few years. The pediatric anti-infective was first developed by Forest Laboratories, formerly of New York City, which was acquired by Actavis in February 2014 for a combination of cash and equity which reached a reported $25 billion.

Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis drugs to aid in fight against kidney cancer

Bristol-Myers Squibb was able to move on in clinical trials of its cancer drug Opvido more quickly than anticipated after kidney cancer patients who were administered the medication showed superior overall survival compared to those patients who were not on an Opvido regimen. Opvido, which has already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced melanomas and lung cancers, is an inhibitor of the protein known as programmed cell death protein 1, or PD-1. PD-1 inhibits the response of T cell lymphocytes, making it more difficult for an immune system to target a tumor.

Deadline Approaches for Public Comments on Patent Term Adjustment

Novartis filed law suits that challenged the determinations by the USPTO of how much time to add to the patent term under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) with respect to 18 different patents. The district court dismissed 15 of the claims as untimely asserted, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling. With respect to the substantive ruling on the other three patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,807,155; 7,968,518; and 7,973,031), the Federal Circuit in a panel decision by Judge Taranto (joined by Judges Newman and Dyk) concluded that the USPTO was partly correct and partly incorrect in its interpretation of § 154(b)(1)(B). As a result, the Federal Circuit determined that Novartis was entitled to most, but not all, of the patent term adjustment it seeks.

Global IP Reaction to India’s Rejection of the Novartis Drug Patent

India’s booming $26 billion generic drug industry and public health sector rejoiced over the Indian Supreme Court’s recent decision to reject a patent filed by the Swiss pharmaceutical giant, Novartis for their landmark leukemia drug, Gleevec. Novartis received a patent for an earlier variation of Gleevec in 40 countries including Russia, China, and Taiwan. However, India’s troubled IP regime applies an ambiguous standard to patentability, the so-called “enhanced efficacy” for new forms of known substances. India only applies their “efficacy” requirement to the chemical and pharmaceutical drug industry as a protectionist measure. India codified the efficacy requirement in section 3(d) of their patent code and this may contravene with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) as set forth by the World Trade Organization (WTO).