Posts Tagged: "teva"

CAFC Upholds PTAB Ruling for Corcept, Finding Teva Failed to Show a Reasonable Expectation of Success

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a precedential decision yesterday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that Teva Pharmaceuticals had failed to prove Corcept Therapuetics’ U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 would have been obvious. The patent covers methods of treating Cushing’s syndrome, a disease caused by excessive levels of the naturally occurring steroid hormone, cortisol. Chief Judge Moore authored the opinion.

Federal Circuit Says Teva Induced Infringement of GSK Patent on Congestive Heart Failure Drug

In GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday reversed a district court’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for Teva, finding that Teva was liable for induced infringement of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) patent directed to a method of treating Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) using carvedilol….. Chief Judge Prost authored a dissenting opinion, wherein she expressed the majority’s opinion undermined a critical balance between patent protection and public access once a patent expires “by allowing a drug marketed for unpatented uses to give rise to liability for inducement and by permitting an award of patent damages where causation has not been shown.”

Federal Circuit Decision Delays Generic Osteoarthritis Drug

On October 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision in HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s findings of invalidity and noninfringement of certain claims of some of the asserted HZNP (Horizon) patents, as well as the district court’s finding of nonobviousness of one claim of another Horizon patent. The finding of nonobviousness means that Actavis, owned by generic drug maker Teva Pharmaceuticals, is enjoined from engaging in the commercial use, offer for sale, or sale of its product covered in its Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) until the expiration of U.S. Patent No. 9,066,913 (the ‘913 patent) in 2027.

Federal Circuit Affirms Validity of Endo Pharmaceuticals Patent for Morphinan Pain Relief Compounds

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court ruling finding patent infringement after holding that Actavis LLC, Actavis South Atlantic LLC, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively, “Actavis”) failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the claims asserted by Endo Pharmaceuticals and Mallinckrodt LLC (collectively, “Endo”) were invalid. See Endo Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis LLC, No. 2018-1054, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2019) (Before Wallach, Clevenger, and Stoll J.) (Opinion for the Court, Wallach, J.) (Dissenting opinion, Stoll, J.). However, the decision was not a unanimous one, with Judge Stoll authoring a dissent that would have reversed the district court. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No 8,871,779 (the “‘779 patent”), is directed generally to compounds known as “morphinan alkaloids,” which are used for pain relief. More specifically, the ‘779 patent concerned processes for making “highly pure” morphinan products in the form of hydrochloride salts. Actavis claimed that the ‘779 patent was invalid, citing three key references as prior art. The first reference was a scientific article from 1957 by Ulrich Weiss (the “Weiss reference”) discussing a method for producing oxymorphone, a compound within the scope of the asserted claims. The second reference was U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0222188 (the “Chapman reference”), which disclosed a purification process related to the asserted claims. Finally, the third reference was another article from 1967 by Henry Rapoport et al. (the “Rapoport reference”), which disclosed another purification process for oxycodone. The district court found that none of these references rendered the asserted claims obvious, and Actavis appealed.

Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 10: Congress and Trump Crack Down on Pharma, Amici File Briefs in Acorda, and USPTO to Modify Patent Term Adjustment Procedures

This week in Other Barks & Bites, IPWatchdog’s IP news roundup: the House of Representatives passes drug patent legislation, while antitrust legislation targeting patent-related activities is introduced into the Senate and the Trump administration mandates pricing information for pharmaceutical ads; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issues a pair of precedential decisions on cases with multiple petitions; the USPTO issues marijuana-related trademark guidelines and a notice on modifying patent term adjustment practices; Gilead strikes a settlement with Teva to bring generic Truvada to the U.S. market in 2020; a new music licensing entity is created in Canada; Fourth Circuit rules that bankruptcy can eliminate damages for trade secret violations; and several amicus file briefs asking the U.S. Supreme Court to eliminate the Federal Circuit’s “blocking patent” doctrine.

Controversy Over Restasis Patents is Misplaced

Competitors like Mylan and Teva, rather than inventing better treatments or cures for dry eyes chose the shortcut. They attacked Allergan’s patent in the PTAB. Allergan responded by assigning their patent to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe who in turn invoked sovereign immunity at the PTAB, and demanded their rights in a real court with a real judge and jury. Mylan, Teva, the PTAB, Congress, and class action lawyers have formed a mob to gang up on Allergan for defending their intellectual property rights. They filed hundreds of suits accusing Allergan and the Tribe of fraud, conspiracy, and sham transactions stemming from an “invalid” patent. The attackers are mistakenly focusing on the patent as the problem. The problem is not the patent, but rather all of the incentives that reward copying instead of innovating.

Eli Lilly patent covering Alimta lung cancer treatment upheld in final written decision from PTAB

On Thursday, October 5th, a final written decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld a series of 22 claims from a patent owned by Indianapolis, IN-based drugmaker Eli Lilly & Company (NYSE:LLY). This decision ends an inter partes review (IPR), which was initially petitioned by Chicago, IL-based generic pharmaceutical firm Neptune Generics to challenge a patent covering Alimta, a drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although sales of Alimta have dropped in recent months, the cancer treatment remains an important part of Eli Lilly’s portfolio.

Injectable migraine treatment being developed by Alder, Eli Lilly, Amgen and others

Migraines are the result of a hereditary neurological disorder which causes certain areas of the brain to become over-excited, creating the throbbing pain and increased sensitivity to lights, smells or sounds which characterize a migraine attack. Not much is known about the brain chemistry that directly causes a migraine, although it’s generally understood that hormonal fluctuations or environmental stimuli can act as triggers. News of successful mid-stage trials for a migraine treatment developed by Alder Biopharmaceuticals Inc. has been greeted with a warm welcome from news media. The results of the trial show that an injectable treatment known as ALD403 administered four times over the course of a year reduced patient suffering from chronic migraines.

Teva first major corporate partner of Watson Health, IBM’s cloud platform for medicine

Just a few months after establishing this health and wellness cloud platform, IBM has secured its first Foundational Life Sciences partner for Watson Health in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (NYSE:TEVA) of Petah Tikva, Israel. Statements from senior Teva officials indicate that the world’s largest manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals will use the personal health cloud to connect more directly with physicians and patients and enable individualized treatment optimization options. It’s hoped that the Big Data tools available through IBM’s Watson analytics will be powerful enough to help Teva and others come up with more effective treatments for the millions of people worldwide suffering from chronic health conditions such as migraine, asthma or neurodegenerative diseases.

Teva acquires Auspex for $3.5 billion, increases patent holdings in orphan disease treatment

This year the pharmaceutical world has already seen some incredible mergers and acquisitions. This rapid pace of activity represents the highest level of pharmaceutical and biotech takeovers since 2009, according to Bloomberg Business. The week of March 30th started with the announcement of four major pharma or biotech mergers which totaled greater than $17 billion in costs, including the $3.5 billion Teva acquisition of Auspex. One particular deal, the purchase of benefits management company Catamaran Corp. by health insurer UnitedHealth Group Inc., will exceed $12 billion on its own.

FTC Sues to Stop Unlawful Blocking of Generic Androgel

The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the FTC Act, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future. At issue in the alleged sham patent infringement suit is an ingredient in branded AndroGel, called isopropyl myristate or IPM. IPM is known as a “penetration enhancer” because it speeds the delivery of the drug’s active ingredient, testosterone, through the skin and into the bloodstream. The patent on branded AndroGel covers only a formulation using IPM as the penetration enhancer, according to the FTC complaint.

Pharma Update: News for April 2014

What follows below is a review of some of the pharma news stories that caught my attention during the month of April 2014. Supreme Court Denies Teva’s Request for an Injunction Relating to Generic Copaxone® — Actavis Announces Celebrex® Patent Challenge Settlement — Actavis Net Revenue Increases 40% to $2.66 Billion in First Quarter 2014.

Mylan’s Prevails in Perforomist® Patent Dispute

Mylan Inc. (NASDAQ: MYL) recently prevailed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in a patent dispute involving Perforomist® (formoterol fumarate) Inhalation Solution, which has as the active ingredient a bronchodialating compound. The district court confirmed the validity of all patents asserted by Mylan. At issue were U.S. Patent Nos. 6,667,344; 6,814,953; 7,348,362; and 7,462,645, which cover Perforomist through June 2021.

Pharma & Biotech Update: News for October 2013

Mouse Model of Parkinson’s Disease Shows Improved Brain Function — DARPA Awards $25 Million To Develop Messenger RNA Therapeutics™ — Actavis Files ANDA for Generic Suboxone® Sublingual Film — AzaSite® Patents Upheld in Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Sandoz — Surgeons Successfully Remove “Inoperable” Metastatic Breast Cancer — Actavis Files ANDA on Acanya® Gel, Gets Sued by Dow, Valeant — NYSE Inquires About Unusual Market Activity for Ampio Pharmaceuticals — Cannabis Biotech Hires Patent Attorney to Protect Medical Marijuana Innovation — Merck’s Hepatitis C Drug Gets Breakthrough Therapy Designation — Therapeutic Vaccine for Hepatitis C Enters Phase I — Urine Test for Cancer Monitoring — Popular Prenatal Vitamin Patent Upheld in District Court — Clinical Trials on Brain Technology to Assist ALS Patients — Teva Gets Favorable Ruling on COPAXONE in the Netherlands — BVGH Recruits Dr. Linda Venczel as New Program Director — Actavis’s settles with FTC over $8.5 Billion acquisition of Warner Chilcott

US Oncologists Report Crucial Cancer Drug Shortages

The mantra of the anti-patent community is nearly in unison on the issue of patented drugs. Of course, everyone wants drugs to be developed, but no one wants to pay the exorbitant prices charged for blockbuster, patented drugs. You can add me to that list of individuals who doesn’t like the prices, but at least there is a benefit. Without appropriate financial incentives in place drugs would not be patented, but then again they wouldn’t be developed either. But what is the justification for scarcity and exorbitant prices of old drugs that are off patent?