Patent Law Practice Center

Hatch files Amendment to Fix IPRs for Pharma

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), co-author of the Hatch-Waxman Act, filed an amendment in the Senate Judiciary Committee to address what many characterize as abusive inter partes review (IPR) filings relating to brand name pharmaceuticals. According to Senator Hatch, his amendment is intended to fix IPRs and restore the careful balance the Hatch-Waxman Act struck to incentivize generic drug development. The Hatch-Waxman Act encourages generic drug manufacturers to challenge patents of brand name drugs by filing Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the Food and Drug Administration, which can and typically does result in patent infringement litigation in federal district court.

“As the coauthor and namesake of Hatch-Waxman, I have a keen interest in ensuring we have a well-functioning generic drug industry,” said Senator Hatch in a press release published last night. “My amendment will ensure that Hatch-Waxman continues to operate as originally intended by protecting the ability of generic drug companies to develop low-cost drugs while at the same time ensuring brand-name companies have sufficient protections in place to recoup their investments.”

In recent years inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has created an alternative path to challenge the patents of brand name drugs; a path alternative to the path envisioned in Hatch-Waxman. Those who support the Hatch-Waxman regime view IPRs as upending the careful Hatch-Waxman balance.

Senator Hatch’s amendment, the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018, would require a generic manufacturer wishing to challenge a brand-name drug patent to choose between Hatch-Waxman litigation, which affords certain advantages such as being able to rely on the drug innovator’s safety and efficacy studies for FDA approval, and IPR, which is cheaper and faster than Hatch-Waxman litigation but does not provide the advantages of a streamlined generic approval process. Parties would not be able to use both. In this way, the amendment aims to fix the misuse of IPRs by generics as parallel and duplicate proceedings to disputes already in place under Hatch-Waxman.

Politically, this Hatch “pick a path“ amendment is going to be paired with S. 974, The CREATES Act of 2017 (H.R. 2212).  This legislation aims to enable the sharing of samples so that generics can compete more effectively.  You can learn more about the substance of the CREATES Act by reading Senator Leahy’s summary here. The Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples (CREATES) Act enjoys broad, bipartisan support from Senators Leahy, Grassley, Feinstein, Graham, Durbin, Lee, Whitehouse, Cruz, Klobuchar, Kennedy, and Blumenthal.  Generics want the CREATES Act, and there are 28 co-sponsors.  The bill was voted out of the Judiciary Committee favorably, but Hatch voted against it.

Raising and connecting the Hatch-Waxman IPR fix to the CREATES Act balances two major interests of both the brand and generic industries.  Brand needs this Hatch-Waxman IPR fix and generics want CREATES.  Like Hatch’s original objective with Hatch-Waxman, each side gains something…resolving a major problem for them…and neither loses anything that they had any reasonable expectation that they would, or should, be able to maintain.

Litigation is the Life of a Generic Drug Manufacturer

Generic drug companies are those that sell versions of a brand name drug that are similar enough so that they can rely on the research and trials of the brand name company. They either have to wait until the patent on the brand name drug expires, or they can proceed through a process at the FDA where they certify that the generic that they want to sell is either not infringing and/or the patent claims obtained by the brand name company are invalid. If they say that they are not infringing and/or that the patent claims are invalid, that allows the brand name drug company to immediately file a patent infringement action, as authorized by Hatch-Waxman.

The way generics make money and the marketplace can sometimes seem byzantine, but there is no doubt that generics can be quite profitable. For example, generic drug maker Actavis plc (NYSE: ACT) recently reported its financial information from the first quarter of 2014. In the announcement, Actavis stated that their net revenue increased 40% to $2.66 billion for the first quarter ended March 31, 2014, compared to $1.90 billion in the first quarter 2013. Cash flow from operations for the first quarter of 2014 was $440 million and cash and marketable securities were $340 million as of March 31, 2014.

But the announcement of exceptional Q1 financial data came at the end of a week that showed just how much of a roller coaster ride it can be for generic drug companies, and just how much of their business model is dominated by litigation, litigation and more litigation.

(more…)

Hatch-Waxman: Eli Lilly Sues Actavis after ANDA Filed on Axiron®

Actavis PLC (NYSE: ACT) recently filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking approval to market Testosterone Topical Solution, 30mg/1.5mL.  Actavis’ ANDA product is a generic version of Eli Lilly and Company’s Axiron^®, which is an androgen indicated for replacement therapy in males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone.

Eli Lilly and Company and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd. filed suit against Actavis on November 12, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana seeking to prevent Actavis from commercializing its ANDA product prior to the expiration of certain of its U.S. patents.  The lawsuit was filed under the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, resulting in a stay of final FDA approval of Actavis’ ANDA for up to 30 months from the date the plaintiffs received notice of Actavis’ ANDA filing or until final resolution of the matter before the court, whichever occurs sooner, subject to any other exclusivities.

(more…)

Forest Labs sues over Generic Version of SAVELLA®

Forest Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE:FRX) and Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd. (collectively, “Forest”) announced the filing of patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Apotex Corp.; Hetero USA Inc.; Lupin Ltd.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.; and related companies and subsidiaries. The complaint alleges the aforementioned companies are infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,602,911 (“the ‘911 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,888,342 (“the ‘342 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,994,220 (“the ‘220 patent”), which relate to Forest’s SAVELLA^® product. Forest licenses the ‘911 patent, the ‘342 patent, and the ‘220 patent from Royalty Pharma.

Forest and Royalty Pharma received notification from these companies that they had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications with Paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic versions of SAVELLA before the expiration of the ‘911 patent, the ‘342 patent, and the ‘220 patent. The lawsuits were commenced before the expiration of 45 days from the date of receipt of each notification letter.

(more…)

SCOTUS Ending Term with Patent Decisions

Over the past several days, the United States Supreme Court has issued several important decisions that will impact the patent system.

First, on June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, which has sometimes been referred to as “ACLU v. Myriad” in recognition of the fact that it was the American Civil Liberties Union that was responsible for bringing the challenge in the district court and pursuing the matter through the judicial system.

In Myriad, Justice Thomas wrote for a nearly unanimous Court.  Only Justice Scalia wrote a brief separate opinion in which he concurred in part and concurred in the judgment.

The majority decision in Myriad is not long, and the first 10 pages are background. Despite not giving much detailed attention to the significant legal issues presented, the Supreme Court did manage to do real and serious harm to much of the biotechnology industry.

Justice Thomas summarized the Court’s decision by saying:

“[W]e hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.”

The decision has widely been reported as the Court recognizing that cDNA is patent eligible, but the ruling is far more nuanced. In fact, Justice Thomas specifically recognized that some cDNA is not patent eligible. He wrote:

“cDNA is not a ‘product of nature’ and is patent eligible under §101, except insofar as very short series of DNA may have no intervening introns to remove when creating cDNA. In that situation, a short strand of cDNA may be indistinguishable from natural DNA.”

I have spoken with a number of people who are in the biotech industry and they all seem to think this decision means that cDNA is patent eligible and I shouldn’t make too much out of Thomas specifically saying that at least some cDNA is not patent eligible. Personally, I think this is misplaced hope; we all know how the district courts will respond, and it won’t be to an expansive reading of patent eligibility. While the USPTO seems poised to say that cDNA is patent eligible, the fact that some has been determined not patent eligible will be used by challengers and likely successfully so. Further, it seems clear that Thomas is saying that if something is man-made but identical to what appears in nature, it is not patent eligible. This fundamentally undercuts the most important aspects of Chakrabarty and would effectively kill research into such important areas as artificially grown organs, which by their very nature must be identical to what is produced in nature to be transplanted into the human body, for example.

(more…)