Markman Advisors
Patent Valuation, Monetization and Investments

Blog

Markman Advisors Patent Blog

Posts tagged Inter Partes Review
Does the Lotus IPR matter to Celgene’s Revlimid or the Bristol transaction?

We previously blogged about Dr. Reddy’s IPRs filed against MDS patents covering Celgene’s Revlimid®.  Those IPRs attracted considerable attention because they were, for better or worse, one of the few data-points within the Revlimid® patent skirmishes we are guaranteed to see before the Bristol transaction closes.  The Lotus IPR attacking one of Celgene’s multiple myeloma patent is another datapoint.  The PTAB’s decision on whether to institute the IPR is due March 18.  How much does Lotus IPR really matter?

Read More
Is Corcept’s new Korlym lawsuit a game-changer against Teva?

Corcept Therapeutics ($CORT) recently filed a new lawsuit against Teva ($TEVA) related to Teva’s proposed generic for Korlym®.  The new suit asserts three new patents that were recently listed in the Orange Book.  Are the three new patents a game-changer?

Read More
What to make of Dr. Reddy’s IPR losses for Celgene’s Revlimid patent cases?

Last week, we wrote about milestones to watch for in Celgene’s ($CELG) Revlimid® patent landscape in 2019 that could potentially impact the Bristol Myers ($BMY) transaction.  One data-point that investors were anticipating were institution decisions in three petitions for inter partes review (IPRs) filed by Dr. Reddy’s.  This week, the PTAB denied institution of all three IPRs.  How will those decisions read-through to the overall Revlimid® patent landscape?

Read More
Three milestones to watch for in 2019 that could impact generic entry for Celgene’s Revlimid.

Since announcing the pending acquisition of Celgene ($CELG) by Bristol Myers ($BMY), investors have focused upon the patent-cases involving Revlimid®.  There are multiple cases and petitions for inter partes review (IPRs) at various stages of resolution.  The key question among investors is whether there will be any key milestones in those cases--especially during 2019 before the Bristol acquisition closes—that will clarify exactly when any of the pending generics will enter.  In this post, we identify three potential milestones to watch for from the Revlimid® patent landscape in 2019. 

Read More
Will Celgene and Dr. Reddy’s settle the Revlimid dispute now that Bristol Myers is at the table?

Celgene ($CELG) has announced plans to be acquired by Bristol Meyers Squibb ($BMY).  A settlement conference is scheduled in the Hatch-Waxman patent case between Celgene and Dr. Reddy’s on January 10, 2019.  Now that Bristol Meyers is at the table, will the parties be able to reach a settlement that couldn’t be reached before?

Read More
The Federal Circuit sends a message about attorneys’ fees in Spineology v. Wright Medical

A recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit sheds important light on how the Court views attorneys fees in patent cases.

Read More
Does Moderna Therapeutics’ pipeline depend upon its patent dispute with Arbutus Biopharma over mRNA delivery?

Moderna is currently embroiled in an intellectual-property dispute that may be material to its long-term profits, regardless of which of the products in its pipeline eventually succeed.  At least one company, Arbutus Biopharma, has already claimed that Moderna’s tech uses its mRNA delivery technology.  Two pending patent disputes may decide whether Arbutus’ patents are a roadblock to Moderna’s revenue.

Read More
Is Boehringer Ingelheim planning to launch its Humira biosimilar at-risk?

Boehringer Ingelheim has been one of the lone holdouts in AbbVie’s ($ABBV) campaign to delay biosimilar competition against Humira® until 2023.  To date, AbbVie has settled with almost all proposed biosimilars for entry dates in 2023.  Is Boehringer going to launch at-risk?

Read More
What are the takeaways from Unified Patents v. Realtime, the PTAB’s first post-AIT RPI decision?

The PTAB has issued its first post-AIT decision, Unified Patents, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC.  In Realtime, the Patent Owner sought to defeat institution by arguing that Unified has run afoul of the AIT decision by failing to identify all RPIs, namely, its members.  The PTAB disagreed and instituted Unified’s IPR.  (The institution decision was entered in October, but the redacted decision issued on November 27, 2018).  How do we square the AIT decision with the Realtime decision?  Will third-party filers, such as Unified and RPX, no longer face RPI issues?

Read More
When did Mylan agree to launch its Herceptin biosimilar?

Mylan’s biosimilar for Herceptin® has FDA approval since December 2017.  Several months earlier, in March 2017, Mylan reached a global settlement with Roche and Genentech regarding their patents covering the drug.  The terms of the settlement have not been made public, which raises the question – when did Mylan agree to launch? 

Read More
Roche prevails on two IPR challenges to Herceptin patents—does it matter?

We previously wrote about Roche’s encroaching biosimilars for Ritxuan®, Herceptin®, and Avastin®.  This week, Roche prevailed on two IPRs covering patents for Herceptin®, but lost a third IPR covering another patent for the same drug. What does this mean? 

Read More
Why did Dr. Reddy’s file three IPRs against Celgene’s Revlimid patents?

On August 3, Dr. Reddy’s filed three petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against three patents owned by Celgene and listed in the Orange Book for Revlimid®.  Does this indicate that Celgene and Dr. Reddy’s are close to a settlement?  If not, what are the take-aways?

Read More
Coherus denied institution on Enbrel® IPRs – how does that affect Sandoz?

The PTAB has denied institution of two IPRs filed by Coherus Biosciences against patents covering Enbrel®’s proteins, the ‘182 and ‘522 patents.  The IPRs were not filed by Sandoz, but they will most likely affect Sandoz.  Sandoz already has FDA approval to market Erelzi®, which is its biosimilar for Enbrel®.  And Sandoz is going to trial against Amgen in April.  How do Coherus IPR decisions affect Sandoz's decision to launch at risk?  Or to settle with Amgen?

Read More
Sandoz lost two IPRs challenging Humira® patents - what does this mean for other biosimilars?

Sandoz was denied institution on two IPRs against Humira® patents owned by AbbVie.  As we previously discussed, in late 2017, Sandoz filed eight different IPRs against Humira® patents.  Two of those IPRs just failed to reach institution.  What are the take-aways, for Sandoz and any other Humira® biosimilars?

Read More
Latest developments on whether the “litigation waiver” really dooms the Tribe’s assertion of sovereign immunity against the Restasis® IPRs

Allergan’s PTAB Restasis® fight continues, and a recent email tiff before the PTAB between the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mylan has added a further wrinkle to this case.  As we previously blogged, a recent decision by the PTAB (between the University of Minnesota and Ericsson) held that a State’s sovereign immunity against an IPR is waived under the Eleventh Amendment where the State affirmatively asserts the challenged patent in litigation.  That decision appeared to potentially doom Allergan’s strategy of passing off its Restasis® patents to the Tribe to defend against the IPRs.  A recent email exchange between the Tribe and Mylan (the Petitioner in the pending Restasis® IPRs) at the PTAB suggests the University of Minnesota decision may not, in fact, be the nail in the coffin that Mylan had likely hoped.  But it also shows that the Tribe may not be on as sound footing as it is claiming.

Read More
The PTAB’s latest sovereign immunity decision leaves open as many questions as it answers.

In the latest twist in the saga pitting sovereign immunity against inter partes review, the PTAB issued a decision on December 19, 2017 that potentially jams a spoke into the wheels of future partnerships between brand pharma and Tribes.  What does this decision bode for Allergan’s Restasis® deal with the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe?  What are the consequences of this decision?

Read More
Notable points from the Tribe's Reply Brief in Restasis® briefing before the PTAB.

The problem with these arguments is that even if they are all true (which is questionable,) they are besides the point.  The issue at stake is whether renting sovereign immunity to evade having to defend the validity of your patent is either permissible or should be permissible.  Indeed, Judge Bryson admonished Allergan for being “conspicuously silent about the broader consequences of the course it has chosen.”  (Allegan v. Teva, Dkt. 522 at 4-5).  Mr. Saunders op-ed in The Wall Street Journal is equally silent. 

Read More