Patent Law Practice Center

Eli Lilly cancer treatment upheld by PTAB

Several weeks ago, 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-based drugmaker Eli Lilly & Company. This decision ends an inter partes review (IPR), which was initially petitioned by Chicago-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).

The Eli Lilly patent challenged by Neptune in the IPR was U.S. Patent No. 7772209, titled Antifolate Combination Therapies. Issued in August 2010, it covers a method for administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof by administering effective amounts of folic acid and a methylmalonic acid lowering agent followed by administering an effective amount of pemetrexed disodium; the particular methylmalonic acid lowering agent used by the treatment is vitamin B12. The use of vitamin B12 in the treatment helps to reduce the cytotoxic activity which antifolates can create in a patient’s body when that patient is undergoing chemotherapy, helping to limit the potentially life-threatening toxicity which antifolates can cause in the human body.

(more…)

Drug patents fare better at PTAB

While the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has not been friendly to patent owners in general, the PTAB has not been inhospitable to pharma patent owners according to a report issued by BiologicsHQ, a searchable database of drugs, patents, and companies involved in PTAB inter partes review (IPR) proceedings developed by attorneys at Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto. The BiologicsHQ report shows a much different story in terms of drug patents facing IPR challenges at the PTAB. The report looks at a combination of data sources, including the Orange Book, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) listed biologics and statistics on America Invents Act (AIA) trials published by the PTAB. The BiologicsHQ report draws the conclusion that, despite widespread concerns about the PTAB operating as a patent death squad in IPRs, “such concern is not justified for drug patents.”

According to the March 2017 IPR statistics issued by the PTAB, 53 percent of IPRs resolved as of March 31, 2017 were instituted; the rest were either denied institution or reached some other resolution prior to the institution decision. 35 percent of all resolved IPRs resulted in final written decisions and 23 percent led to findings of all claims unpatentable. Only 7 percent of all resolved IPRs led to final written decisions finding that no claim was unpatentable, and 5 percent led to mixed claim findings.

By contrast, drug patents fare better under PTAB scrutiny in terms of having claims upheld. Of the 4,563 resolved IPRs, BiologicsHQ reports that 222 petitions (5 percent) involved patents covering drugs listed in the Orange Book. Focusing on just the IPRs involving Orange Book patents, 44 percent were instituted and 38 percent reached a final written decision, but only 16 percent led to final written decisions where all claims were found unpatentable. No instituted claim was found unpatentable in 50 percent of final written decisions (19 percent of the total number of resolved Orange Book IPRs).

CDER-listed biologic drug patents also survive PTAB challenges better than patents not directed to pharmaceutical drugs, although the number of resolved challenges is quite small by comparison. By March 31, 2017, BiologicsHQ reports that a total of 29 resolved IPR petitions involved patents covering CDER-listed biologics. 41 percent of those petitions were instituted and 28 percent reached final written decisions. 17 percent of all resolved CDER-listed biologic drug IPRs led to final written decisions of all claims unpatentable, and 10 percent led to final written decisions of no claims unpatentable.

When comparing final written decisions among all IPRs, IPRs relating to Orange Book patents, and IPRs relating to CDER-listed biologic drug patents, Orange Book and CDER-listed biologic drug patents are more likely to escape with all claims intact. For all resolved IPRs, 23 percent led to final written decisions of all claims unpatentable. That’s a higher percentage than the 16 percent of Orange Book IPRs, and 17 percent of CDER-listed biologic drug IPRs that led to final written decisions where all claims are unpatentable. The 7 percent of all IPRs that led to final written decisions of no claims unpatentable is less than the 10 percent of CDER-listed biologic drug IPRs, and the 19 percent of Orange Book IPRs, that met the same fate.

Overall, 58 percent of IPRs involving drug patents resolved by the PTAB resulted in some claims remaining patentable: 60 percent for Orange Book IPRs and 45 percent for CDER-listed biologic IPRs.

Board ends interference on CRISPR

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a decision in the CRISPR patent interference pending between The Broad Institute, Inc. (the Junior Party; second filer) and The Regents of the University of California (the Senior Party; first filer). The dispute is related to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,697,359; 8,771,945; 8,795,965; 8,865,406; 8,871,445; 8,889,356; 8,895,308; 8,906,616; 8,932,814; 8,945,839; 8,993,233; 8,999,641; and U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/704,551.

The PTAB, in a per curiam decision, wrote:

Broad has persuaded us that the parties claim patentably distinct subject matter, rebutting the presumption created by declaration of this interference. Broad provided sufficient evidence to show that its claims, which are all limited to CRISPR-Cas9 systems in a eukaryotic environment, are not drawn to the same invention as UC’s claims, which are all directed to CRISPR-Cas9 systems not restricted to any environment. Specifically, the evidence shows that the invention of such systems in eukaryotic cells would not have been obvious over the invention of CRISPR-Cas9 systems in any environment, including in prokaryotic cells or in vitro, because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected a CRISPR-Cas9 system to be successful in a eukaryotic environment. This evidence shows that the parties’ claims do not interfere. Accordingly, we terminate the interference.

(more…)

FTC revives pay-for-delay complaint on generic Lidoderm

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced that it had taken steps to resolve antitrust charges involving business activities employed by Irish/U.S. drugmaker Endo International designed to delay the entry of generic pain medications into the U.S. to preserve monopoly profits. The FTC filed a complaint for injunctive relief and a motion for entry of stipulated order for permanent injunction against Endo and others in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.). These actions revive charges from a lawsuit filed by the FTC last March against Endo involving pay-for-delay patent settlements.

The FTC’s complaint identifies an anti-competitive reverse-payment agreement between Endo and Watson Laboratories, Inc. of Corona, CA, a company which was poised to introduce a generic version of Endo’s Lidoderm lidocaine patch into the U.S. market by the middle of 2012. Watson had filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for a generic Lidoderm patch with the FDA in January 2010, an application which included a paragraph IV certification claiming that Endo’s patent covering Lidoderm is invalid, unenforceable or uninfringed by Watson’s generic version. Endo earned $825 million from sales of Lidoderm during 2011, making up 30 percent of the company’s profits that year, according to the FTC’s suit. (more…)

Patent Eligibility Relief for the Life Sciences Sector

Several weeks ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Rapid Litigation Management LTD v. Cellzdirect, Inc. The patent owner appealed the decision of the district court, which had concluded that claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,929 were patent ineligible under the “law of nature” doctrine. The unanimous Federal Circuit panel, which was made up of Chief Judge Prost (writing for the majority), Judge Moore and Judge Stoll, vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit ruled that the ‘929 patent claims in question were not directed to a patent-ineligible concept.

This decision could well mark a significant turning point and give real relief to innovators in the life sciences arena. Up until now, the Federal Circuit has avoided a narrow reading of the Supreme Court’s recent precedents in Mayo v. Prometheus and AMP v. Myriad Genetics. It is difficult to know exactly why that has been the case, but one strong possibility is that the Federal Circuit was looking to the Supreme Court to clarify and narrow the expansive language that they used in Mayo and Myriad.

(more…)