Corcept Therapeutics has been battling for years to halt Teva’s generic for Korlym®. Although Corcept started off with only two patents, it has been adding patents to the Orange Book ever since Teva’s ANDA was filed. By periodically litigating those patents in piecemeal fashion, Corcept has delayed generic Korlym®’s availability to consumers at lower-cost prices. Yet, in a recent order, the court finally called out Corcept’s delay tactics and indicated it would award attorneys’ fees. What happened?
Read MoreThe battle continues. We previously wrote about the Federal Circuit’s decision in the case (GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva) and how that case may offer Amarin another chance to bar generics from the market for Vascepa®. Sure enough, on November 30, Amarin filed suit against Hikma asserting three patents covering use of EPA to treat cardiovascular events. What are the takeaways from this suit?
Read MoreOn November 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision, Vaeleant Pharmaceuticals v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, that is likely to have a significant impact on the litigation of Hatch-Waxman cases—including the possible development of “generic-friendly” districts. In short, if this decision stands, the future of patent pharma litigation against multiple generics for the same drug will likely be spread out, difficult to consolidate, subject to multiple forums determining in parallel common issues related to infringement and invalidity. Costs for brands are likely to go up along with settlement leverage for generics. Although, exactly who wins and who loses from this decision remains to be seen.
Read MoreOn June 4, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision holding that § 285 under the Patent Statute is inapplicable for awarding attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a proceeding for inter partes review. The case is Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Almirall, LLC, Case No. 2020-1106 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 4, 2020). While the Court’s decision dispenses rather cleanly with the possibility of collecting fees for prevailing in an IPR, the Court nonetheless left open the door to collecting fees if the IPR is intimately tied to a pending parallel district court case. How much does that matter?
Read MoreAmarin ($AMRN) has lost its trial against Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s. On March 30, the Honorable Miranda M. Du from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued a bench order following a multi-day trial in January. Judge Du held that although Amarin had proven that the generics would induce infringement of the asserted patents by selling their prospective generic versions of Vacepa®, all of the patents were nonetheless invalid as obvious. As a result, Judge Du denied an injunction against Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s for selling generic versions of Vascepa®. What happens now?
Read MoreWe previously blogged about the upcoming litigation trial between Amarin Pharmaceuticals ($AMRN) and Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma, which are two prospective generics for Amarin’s Vascepa®. While that blog post provided a general overview of the issues to be litigated at the upcoming trial, there are numerous other issues and questions around the upcoming trial. This post will focus on how the REDUCE-IT trial may impact Amarin’s fight with the existing generics, if at all.
Read MoreAnother generic has filed an ANDA with the FDA for a license to distribute a generic version of Korlym®. Teva is no longer the only company seeking to sell generic Korlym®, which therefore increases the likelihood that Corcept Therapeutics ($CORT) will face a generic competitor for its main drug at some point in the future.
Read MoreHigh drug prices remain in the news. A recent precedential decision from the Federal Circuit shows that certain drug prices will stay high if drug companies can simply take a mandate from the FDA, which was not their idea, and file a patent on it, thereby cornering the market on all IP around that mandate. The case is Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis, LLC, Case No. 2018-1054 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2019).
Read MoreCelgene ($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 MoreCelgene faces a new gang of generics moving in on its blockbuster Revlimid®. Over the past year, a number of generics have filed ANDAs against Revlimid®, including Dr. Reddy’s, Zydus, Cipla, and Lotus Pharmaceutical. Those ANDAs have triggered corresponding Hatch-Waxman lawsuits from Celgene. Among the asserted patents, most of them expire by 2022, with the exception of two polymorph patents that could extend Revlimid® monopoly until 2027. The lawsuits are in their early stages, but an upcoming Markman hearing in the case against Dr. Reddy’s is shaping up to be critical to whether Celgene can protect is Revlimid® monopoly past 2022. See our recent publication in IPWatchdog outlining the case in more detail.
Read More