I previously blogged about the surprising case, GlaxoKlineSmith v. Teva (GSK), where the Federal Circuit held that a generic pharmaceutical company can, under the right circumstances, be liable for inducing infringement of a method-of-use pharmaceutical patent despite carving out the patented indication from its label. The decision at first spooked the generic pharmaceutical industry, but was then followed by two additional opinions—one related to a panel rehearing, followed by another one, which issued on February 11, 2022, denying a hearing en banc, which included a fiery dissent. These decisions show clear disagreements among the Judges at the Federal Circuit. What is at the heart of this dispute?
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 MoreJust when you think the Amarin saga to keep out generic competition is over, something else happens. In the latest development, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in an unrelated case (GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva) that suggests that a generic could potentially be liable for inducing infringement of a patented indication, even though that indication has been carved out of the generic’s label. Will this decision benefit Amarin?
Read MoreAmarin’s appeal of the district court’s decision invalidating the Marine patents is now fully briefed. Amarin’s reply brief is strong, but does it tip the odds in favor of Amarin prevailing on the appeal?
Read MoreHikma and Dr. Reddy’s have filed their appellate brief defending Judge Du’s decision invalidating the Marine patents. What does it say?
Read MoreOn May 12, 2020, Amarin ($AMRN) filed its opening appeal brief in its appeal of the decision by the District of Nevada wherein the Honorable Miranda M. Du invalidated six patents that were asserted against prospective generics, Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s. What does the brief say?
Read MoreIn Amarin’s pending Hatch-Waxman Vascepa case against Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma, we see at least obstacles to settlement at this time before resolution of the appeal: money, entry and invalidity.
Read MoreWe have received several follow-up questions, both online and offline, regarding some of our earlier posts – especially on the topics of Kurabayashi and prospective settlement. This post will attempt to collect further thoughts on Kurabayashi. This post gets deeper into the weeds than most of our earlier posts, but it is in response to thoughtful questions and comments that investors clearly looking for areas of weakness in the district court’s opinion. We will follow up shortly on another post discussing dynamics of a potential settlement.
Read MoreThe post mortem of the district court’s decision invalidating Amarin’s ($AMRN) Marine patents continues. We received questions regarding a finding of fact related to the prior art reference, Kurabayashi. The Honorable Miranda M. Du from the District of Nevada found that Kurabayashi was not considered during prosecution of the patents and that Kurabayashi suggested that pure EPA would reduce Apo-B. Are these findings accurate? If not, are they a basis to reverse Judge Du’s decision on appeal?
Read MoreIn the wake of the Nevada district court’s opinion on March 30, which invalidated Amarin’s patents for the Marine indication, we have received questions regarding whether the court committed a procedural error that may justify a reversal on appeal. I mentioned this issue in a parenthetical in our earlier post, but will address this issue in greater depth in this post.
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 MoreAmarin Pharmaceuticals ($AMRN) will be going to trial soon to protect Vascepa® against generic competition. Amarin has asserted 15 claims from six patents against ANDAs filed by Hikma, Dr. Reddy’s and Teva. What are the issues to be addressed at trial?
Read More