Posts Tagged: "drug patents"

Critics argue that pharmaceutical patents are a barrier to wide-reaching access to medicines, especially for vulnerable populations in the developing world. They cast their argument in the phrase, “Patents Kill” and advocate against intellectual property (IP) protection for medical innovation and the trade agreements that incorporate them… Not surprisingly, barriers to access are more prevalent in less developed nations and access to medicine is a function of the level of economic development. Not surprisingly, higher-income nations benefit from greater access to medicines.

In a moment of extreme weakness, I agreed to Gene’s request to doing a primer on Paragraph IV Certifications under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, commonly referred to as Hatch-Waxman. I don’t know if you would call me an expert, but I’ve studied many, many cases involving Paragraph IV Certifications under Hatch-Waxman. The courts have found Hatch-Waxman to be a hydra-like monster with a labyrinth of sections that are frequently confusing (or worse yet, conflicting). Paragraph IV Certifications are a particular trouble spot in Hatch-Waxman. So if you’re up to diving into the “belly of this beast,” let’s examine the characteristics of this most infamous of the Hatch-Waxman monsters. To understand Paragraph IV Certifications, you must first address what an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) is. ANDAs are how generic drug manufactures expedite the approval of their generic drugs.

Among other claims, the generic firms allege that Actelion’s conduct violates the federal antitrust laws. Actelion seeks a broad declaration that it is under “no duty or obligation” to sell its products to potential competitors. Although Actelion contends that its distribution restrictions are required by the FDA, it argues that its right to refuse to sell to the generic firms is nearly absolute and would apply even without any FDA mandate. The FTC’s amicus brief explains that Actelion’s legal position, if adopted by the court, could pose a significant threat to competition in the pharmaceutical industry.

While it is easy to point to patents and blame the industry and international trade agreements for barriers to access to medicines in developing nations, the reality of the situation is more nuanced and not nearly so straightforward.  In the debate over barriers to access, the focus must be broadened to include other important factors such as poverty, taxes and tariffs, corruption and pharmaceutical counterfeiting.  Each of these elements inhibits access to medicines, through financial challenges, higher prices, shortages, and spurious products.  For the most vulnerable populations it is essential to address all of the key barriers to access, and improve procurement and monitoring systems.  Without a wider focus and a solution to these problems, it is unlikely that efforts to improve access will succeed.

In the past several years, the Second, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits have upheld these settlements (known as “reverse payment” agreements since the money flows from the patentee to the alleged infringer rather than the other way around). These courts have focused on the benefits of settling cases and the presumption of patent validity, and they have explained that payments fall within the “scope of the patent.” In contrast, the Third Circuit recently applied more aggressive scrutiny, rejecting the scope test and finding that payments for delay were “prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade.”

Several public interest groups recently filed a march in petition under the Bayh-Dole Act asking NIH to force Abbott Laboratories to license its competitors for the production of Ritonavir, a drug used to treat AIDS.  Drug developers face a daunting task. For every 5,000 drugs tested, about five proceed to clinical trials. Perhaps one is eventually approved.  That one must not only pay for itself, but for all the company’s other drugs that died along the way. This grim math eludes the petitioners.

Not only is the FTC arguing that product changes to patented drugs violate U.S. antitrust laws, but the FTC and Department of Justice (DOJ) are going to look into whether patent enforcement activities that seek redress for infringement violate U.S. antitrust laws. See FTC, DOJ to Hold Workshop on Patent Assertion Entities. This does not bode well for a second Obama term, and I have to wonder whether those in the patent community that decided to vote for President Obama due to his perceived friendliness to patents and smooth running of the Patent Office are going to start to have regrets, particularly now that David Kappos is leaving the USPTO.

In a “no-AG” agreement, the branded firm, as part of the patent litigation settlement, agrees that it will not launch its own generic alternative when the first generic begins to compete. Since the introduction of the branded AG would cut into the revenues of a competing generic product, a no-AG commitment can induce the generic firm to delay entry of its product to the market. Thus, the Commission concludes, a no-AG commitment is legally sufficient to trigger a rebuttable presumption of illegality under the law of the Third Circuit.

Americans cannot be expect to either personally or through their health insurance bear the burden associated with solely providing the return on investment required by investors to prompt pharmaceutical companies into the marketplace. Whether Americans pay through exorbitant prices out of pocket, or they pay through high priced health insurance premiums, there is no doubt that Americans subsidize individuals all around the world who pay far less than we pay in the United States. This is not a patent problem, but rather it is a government problem. Rather than seize control of the U.S. health care industry government should have tackled the underlying drivers of the cost, and a great place to start would have been in the staggeringly disparate cost of drugs between the U.S. and virtually every other country around the world.

Last week, on Friday, June 15, 2012, Merck (NYSE: MRK) announced the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Judge Peter G. Sheridan) ruled against the company on the issue of patent infringement in its suit against Apotex Inc. According to Merck, global sales of Nasonex® in 2010 topped $1.2 billion. See Merck News. A variety of Internet sources place the Nasonex® market share of the inhaled steroid market at 47%. Therefore, this patent loss some 6 years before the Nasonex® patent expires is a big deal.

The mantra of the anti-patent community is nearly in unison on the issue of patented drugs. Of course, everyone wants drugs to be developed, but no one wants to pay the exorbitant prices charged for blockbuster, patented drugs. You can add me to that list of individuals who doesn’t like the prices, but at least there is a benefit. Without appropriate financial incentives in place drugs would not be patented, but then again they wouldn’t be developed either. But what is the justification for scarcity and exorbitant prices of old drugs that are off patent?

I am skeptical about the prospects for invalidating patents on drugs, particularly important or blockbuster drugs. I also question whether anti-patent do-gooders in the biotech and pharma space are really causing more harm than good through attempts to bust patents on blockbuster drugs. According to their own press release, PUBPAT acknowledges that the tablet is heat stable and does not need to be refrigerated like prior versions of the drug. They seemingly make the argument, although not directly, that because this makes it much more convenient for patients it is unfair to charge prices sufficient to recoup R&D and a premium to make the speculative R&D reasonably profitable for investors. Of course, the fact that the drug in question is extremely convenient for patients is not a reason to invalid the claims, and in fact is likely a compelling reason why in this instance the patent claims cover a truly novel and nonobvious innovation.

With an opportunity to render some order out of the Bilski chaos, the Federal Circuit instead completely ducked the patent-eligibility issue clearly presented in King Pharmaceuticals. The Federal Circuit then created (and I do mean “created”) the new “an anticipated method claim doesn’t become patentable if it simply includes an informing step about an inherent property of that method” doctrine. With this new “doctrine,” we have now “jumped down the rabbit hole” into a surreal “Bilski in Patentland” world.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. issued a press release last week discussing the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) containing a Paragraph IV certification for COPAXONE® (glatiramer acetate injection), filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Teva announced that it has filed a lawsuit against Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan Inc. and Natco Pharma Ltd. for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the…

Until recently the Obama Administration had not taken any particularly strong or controversial stances with respect to intellectual property protection.  Sure, President Obama appointed a former RIAA attorney to a top spot in the Department of Justice, asked for study of open source initiatives for the federal government and has complained about counterfeiting and copyright infringement abroad.  On patent matters…