Posts Tagged: "Actavis"

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.

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.

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.

It has been five years since FTC v. Actavis. In that landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that settlements by which brand-name drug companies pay generics to settle patent litigation and delay entering the market could have “significant anticompetitive effects” and violate the antitrust laws. What has happened in these five years? For starters, the number of “pay for delay” settlements (involving payment and delayed entry) has declined.

Horizon Pharma filed an action for patent infringement against Actavis and Lupin Pharmaceuticals in response to the filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) by both defendants for a generic version of Pennsaid, a topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) marketed in the U.S. by Horizon. Both cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

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.

The number of these potentially anticompetitive deals has fallen significantly following the Supreme Court’s landmark antitrust decision in FTC v. Actavis in 2013. The total number of such deals filed with the FTC has dropped to 21 in FY 2014 from 29 in FY 2013, and 40 in FY 2012 prior to the Actavis ruling. The FTC staff report for FY 2014 represents the first annual snapshot of such deals following the Actavis decision.

On Monday, June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision on so-called “reverse payments.” This decision will impact how brand name drug companies and generics enter into patent settlements to resolve pending patent litigation. In a nutshell, speaking for the majority, Justice Breyer wrote that there is no valid reason for the FTC to be denied the opportunity to pursue reverse payments as an antitrust violation. Breyer, who was joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsberg, Kagan, and Sotomayor, determined that reviewing courts should apply the rule of reason when determining whether reverse payments violate antitrust law.