Novartis is currently involved in a multi-district patent litigation campaign to block generic entrants for Entresto®, which is Novartis’ blockbuster heart medication. In the fall of 2022, Novartis went to trial on the validity of one of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,101,659(“the ‘659 patent”). On July 7, 2023, the district court invalidated the patent for lack of written description despite rejecting an enablement defense based upon the same evidence. The district court’s decision highlights a clear tension between claim construction and enablement that, if left to stand, could permit pharmaceutical companies to block lower-cost generic medications with patents they did not actually invent. Read the full post at IPWatchddog.
Read MoreNovartis is currently embroiled in a sprawling multi-district patent-litigation campaign to block generic entrants for Entresto®, which is Novartis’ blockbuster heart medication. Numerous generics have filed ANDAs, and Novartis has asserted a variety of patents against them. In the fall of 2022, Novartis went to trial on the validity of one of the patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,101,659 (“the ‘659 patent”). The trial briefs suggest Novartis is asking the court to block lower-cost generic entrants based on a patent that it didn’t really invent. How can this be?
Read MoreWhen does a pile of sand become a heap? When is a portfolio of patents too many patents? Can using too many patents to compel generics to take a later entry date turn into monopolistic conduct? These questions lurk the heart of the antitrust litigation brought by buyers of the blockbuster drug, Humira®, against its manufacturer, AbbVie ($ABBV). The case is currently pending within the Northern District of Illinois (In Re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, No. 19-cv-1873 (N.D. Ill.)). We previously blogged about related allegations before the case was filed when Boehringer Ingelheim raised them within its biosimilar litigation against AbbVie. On June 8, 2020, the Illinois federal court dismissed the antitrust action pursuant to AbbVie’s motion to dismiss. What are the takeaways from the case?
Read MoreWe recently blogged about the pending appeal of an IPR that upheld the patentability of the ‘405 patent covering Gilenya®. If Novartis ($NVS) prevails in that appeal, then that could potentially secure another seven years of exclusivity for Gilenya® without generic competition. Novartis, however, has a back-up plan. The Patent Office recently granted Novartis an additional patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,543,179) covering Gilenya®, which will also not expire until December 2027. Novartis has already commenced Hatch-Waxman suits against numerous generics to enforce the ‘179 patent. How strong is this patent?
Read MoreNovartis’ ($NVS) blockbuster drug, Gilenya®, is facing an onslaught of prospective generic competition. In response, Novartis has wielded one of its patents – the ‘405 patent. The patent survived an IPR challenge, and that decision has been appealed to the Federal Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed and heard oral argument earlier this year in January. If Novartis prevails in the appeal, that means it could potentially exclude generics until the ‘405 patent expires in 2027. What is the likelihood Novartis will prevail?
Read MoreWhile Bristol Myers ($BMY) proposed acquisition of Celgene’s ($CELG) remains in question by activists questioning Revlimid®’s pending patent cliff, a new patent angle emerges. A Credit Suisse analyst recently identified a patent owned by Novartis ($NVS) that could purportedly act as a “roadblock” to Celgene’s MS drug ozanimod. Is this true?
Read MoreBoehringer Ingelheim has claimed that AbbVie wrongfully created a “patent thicket” around Humira®, and it is delaying biosimilar competition. While that defense is unique, and may be hard to prove on its face, the FDA appears to agree with Boehringer. Did AbbVie create a wrongful “patent thicket” around Humira®?
Read MoreAbbVie ($ABBV) has commenced its latest litigation in its campaign to keep biosimilars for Humira® at bay. On August 10, AbbVie brought suit against Sandoz ($NVS) asserting that two of AbbVie’s patents will be infringed by Sandoz’s proposed biosimilar. Sandoz is the fifth biosimilar to throw its hat in the ring. Does this increase the odds of the US market seeing a biosimilar for Humira® before 2023?
Read MoreThe biosimilars are biting. And they are biting at three big biologics distributed by Roche through its biotech subsidiary, Genentech. Roche currently faces pending biosimilar competition against Avastin® (bevacizumab), Roche’s biggest selling cancer drug, Herceptin® (trastuzmab), Roche’s breast-cancer drug, and Rituxan® (rituximab), Roche’s immunotherapy drug. All three drugs are involved in patent litigations. How long will these cases last? And how long can Roche keep the biosimilars out?
Read MoreThe parties recently filed a report that appears to identify what the September trial will focus on, but it was filed under seal, which leaves investors in the dark.
Read MoreNovartis has filed a patent lawsuit against Regeneron seeking damages for sales of Eylea® and Zaltrap®. On March 19, 2018, Novartis sued Regeneron in the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division, for infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,688,688. The ‘688 patent claims gene expression constructs for the expression of polypeptides in mammalian cells. How strong is Novartis’ case, and what is Regeneron’s exposure?
Read MoreThe PTAB has denied institution of two IPRs filed by Coherus Biosciences against patents covering Enbrel®’s proteins, the ‘182 and ‘522 patents. The IPRs were not filed by Sandoz, but they will most likely affect Sandoz. Sandoz already has FDA approval to market Erelzi®, which is its biosimilar for Enbrel®. And Sandoz is going to trial against Amgen in April. How do Coherus IPR decisions affect Sandoz's decision to launch at risk? Or to settle with Amgen?
Read More