Mylan ($MYL) recently prevailed on a motion to dismiss for improper venue in a pending Hatch-Waxman case for the drug Eliquis®. Mylan successfully argued that Delaware was an improper venue under the recently test for venue in patent cases enunciated by the Supreme Court in TC Heartland. What are the implications of TC Heartland governing venue in all Hatch-Waxman cases? Will it lead to “generic friendly” judicial districts?
Read MoreUnified Patents recently released statistics on patent lawsuit filings. The statistics show patent filings to be trending downwards fairly significantly from a peak in 2015. Yet, the statistics also show that the individual inventor, asserting his or her own patent, is behind many patent suits. Does that matter?
Read MoreIn June of this year, the Supreme Court issued a decision in WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp. On its face, the case had minimal potential impact because it was limited to a more rarified form of infringement. Now, however, the District Court in the long-running dispute between Power Integrations and Fairchild Semiconductor has suggested WesternGeco could justify taxing foreign sales for other forms of infringement of a United States patent. And the Court has also kicked this question up to the Federal Circuit to decide. Will damages for infringing a U.S. patent soon reach foreign sales?
Read MoreAmgen’s ($AMGN) patent fight against Regeneron ($REGN) and Sanofi has been quiet for much of this year. But it is likely to heat up again shortly. What is coming up?
Read MoreThe anti-CGRP market is heating. Amgen’s ($AMGN) Aimovig® received FDA approval in May 2018, and Teva’s ($TEVA) Ajovy® received approval in September. Hot on their heels, Eli Lilly’s ($LLY) Emgality® just received FDA approval at the end of September. The drugs will all be sold for essentially the same price of $6900 / year. Given the tight competition, can Teva use its patents to kick anyone off the market?
Read MoreIn 2016, MorphoSys ($MOR) sued Janssen ($JNJ) and Genmab for patent infringement. MorphoSys claims that Janssen’s anti-CD38 antibody, Darzalex®, infringes three of its patents. The case is scheduled to go to trial in February 2019. The stakes are big because the patents purport to cover the actual protein used in Darzalex®, which could mean material royalty rates on sales of Janssen’s drug. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case?
Read MoreFacebook ($FB) recently sued Blackberry ($BB) in the Northern District of California. The move appears to be the latest salvo in the patent war heating up between the companies. Yet, there are a few noteworthy aspects of Facebook’s suit.
Read MoreThe CRISP-Cas9 saga has effectively come to an end. For now. On September 10, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the PTAB dismissing the interference between UC and Broad. What are the implications for UC’s patents? What are the chances UC can successfully appeal to the Supreme Court?
Read MoreWe previously wrote about Corcept’s ($CORT) amended complaint in its Hatch-Waxman patent litigation against Teva ($TEVA) regarding Korlym®. On July 27, Teva filed another motion to dismiss. Corcept opposed the motion on August 21, and Teva filed its reply on August 28. The motion is now fully briefed. Who will prevail?
Read MoreBoehringer Ingelheim has claimed that AbbVie wrongfully created a “patent thicket” around Humira®, and it is delaying biosimilar competition. While that defense is unique, and may be hard to prove on its face, the FDA appears to agree with Boehringer. Did AbbVie create a wrongful “patent thicket” around Humira®?
Read MoreAbbVie ($ABBV) has commenced its latest litigation in its campaign to keep biosimilars for Humira® at bay. On August 10, AbbVie brought suit against Sandoz ($NVS) asserting that two of AbbVie’s patents will be infringed by Sandoz’s proposed biosimilar. Sandoz is the fifth biosimilar to throw its hat in the ring. Does this increase the odds of the US market seeing a biosimilar for Humira® before 2023?
Read MoreWe previously blogged about Pfizer’s ($PFE) antitrust lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) related to Janssen’s Remicade®. In short, Pfizer launched Inflectra® in 2016, which is a biosimilar to Janssen’s Remicade®. Yet, Inflectra® has struggled to eat into Janssen’s monopoly for Remicade®. Pfizer claims that Inflectra®’s poor sales are due to anticompetitive rebate schemes by Janssen. Specifically, Janssen forced hospitals and insurers to enter exclusive arrangements and bundled-rebated programs that discouraged them from stocking or covering Inflectra®. Pfizer sued Janssen in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Janssen moved to dismiss, but on August 10, the Court denied Janssen’s motion to dismiss. What are the takeaways?
Read MoreJudge Hellerstein, however, recently disagreed. His short order upends a lot of conventional thinking about the confidentiality of patent settlement agreements, with its finding that the public interest in transparent court proceedings and in the "legitimate scope" of patent monopolies outweighs the interests of the parties in keeping the agreement confidential. Except for the actual payment amount, the "strong common law and constitutional presumptions of public access" compel disclosure of the other settlement terms in Judge Hellerstein's view. Especially where the the "court and parties should be publicly accountable for private settlement arrangements" involving patent rights that affect the public-at-large.
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 MoreThe Federal Circuit recently issued a strong decision instructing the PTAB to rethink the way that it decides who is an RPI (real-party-in-interest). While the decision involved RPX, it presents a more existential threat to Unified Patents, which has risen as one of the most prolific non-party filers of IPRs. Can Unified survive the CAFC’s RPX decision?
Read MoreWe previously discussed Teva’s ($TEVA) motion to dismiss Corcept Therapeutic’s ($CORT) Hatch-Waxman lawsuit commenced in response to Teva’s ANDA for Korlym®. In response to that motion to dismiss, on July 6, Corcept filed an amended complaint. What are the implications of that? And how does the case currently dovetail with the pending patent applications?
Read MoreOn July 20, in an otherwise unremarkable opinion, the Honorable S. Jay Plager issued a stinging dissent that should resound throughout the patent community—and may, in fact, resound throughout district courts. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 2016-2502 (July 20, 2018). Interestingly, Judge Plager did not dissent from the majority’s holding itself, but rather concurred in the reasoning of the majority. Instead, and importantly, he dissented in the Federal Circuit’s “continued application of [Alice’s] incoherent body of doctrine.” Judge Plager’s dissent is nothing short of a recommendation that district courts stop applying the Alice doctrine, at least not until resolution of other defenses in the case. Does that matter?
Read More