Abbreviated New Drug Application ANDA Books CAFC Courts double patenting Federal Circuit Federal Circuit Review Gilenya Guest Contributors Hatch-Waxman Act IP News IPWatchdog Articles Judge Kimberly Moore Judge Ray Chen Judge Todd Hughes Novartis Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC obviousness type double patenting patent Patent Litigation Patents pharmaceutical patent law pharmaceuticals

Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Term Extension for Novartis Drug

Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Term Extension for Novartis Drug

The USA Courtroom of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lately affirmed a district courtroom determination discovering the ‘229 patent legitimate, unexpired, enforceable, and infringed, and granting an injunction till February 2019. Particularly, the Federal Circuit held that the ‘229 patent’s five-year time period extension pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 156 was legitimate, regardless that it successfully prolonged the time period of a associated patent. The Courtroom additionally held that the ‘229 patent was not invalid based mostly on obviousness-type double patenting as a result of obviousness-type double patenting can’t invalidate a patent which has acquired a legitimate time period extension. Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, No. 2017-2284, (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) (Earlier than Moore, Chen, and Hughes, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the courtroom by Chen, Circuit Decide).

Ezra filed an Abbreviated New Drug Software (“ANDA”) for a generic model of Novartis’ a number of sclerosis drug, Gilenya. In response, Novartis filed go well with towards Ezra within the District of Delaware for infringement of the ‘229 patent, which claims numerous compounds together with fingolimod, the lively ingredient in Gilenya. The ‘229 patent was filed earlier than the enactment of the Uruguay Spherical Settlement Act of 1994 (“URAA”) and consequently, was set to run out on February 28, 2014—17 years after issuance. Novartis filed for and secured a five-year patent time period extension (“PTE”) for the ‘229 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 156, which was enacted as a part of the Hatch-Waxman Act to offset the delays related to acquiring regulatory approval for brand spanking new medicine. Part 156 permits a patent proprietor to use for a five-year extension of the patent time period for a single patent. Novartis owned two patents associated to the drug Gilenya—the ‘229 patent and the ‘565 patent which is directed to a way of administering Gilenya. Novartis selected to increase the time period of the ‘229 patent, which won’t expire till February 18, 2019, fairly than the ‘565 patent, which expired on September 23, 2017.

On the district courtroom, Ezra filed a movement for judgment on the pleadings making two main arguments. First, Ezra argued that by extending the ‘229 patent time period 5 years, Novartis successfully prolonged the patent time period of the ‘565 patent 5 years in violation of Part 156 as a result of the ‘565 patent can’t be practiced with out the ‘229 patent. Second, Ezra argued that the extension of the ‘229 patent time period rendered the patent invalid for statutory and obviousness-type double patenting as a result of the ‘229 patent claims will not be patentably distinct from the earlier-expired ‘565 patent. The district courtroom dismissed every of Ezra’s arguments, noting that the language of Part 156 permits a patent proprietor to increase the time period of a single patent; it says nothing about successfully extending the time period of a second patent. Thus, it might be improper to learn “successfully” into the statute. The district courtroom additionally dismissed Ezra’s arguments about double patenting, noting that a movement for judgment on the pleadings isn’t the right car to determine Ezra’s double patenting problem as a result of factual points, together with declare development, had but to be determined. The district courtroom additionally dismissed a 3rd argument by Ezra that the general public has a proper to apply expired patents, noting that the “expiration of a patent doesn’t grant the general public an affirmative proper to apply a patent; it merely ends the time period of the patentee’s proper to exclude others from working towards the patent.” As a result of Ezra did not cite any authority or rationale for altering the coverage behind patent rights, its problem was not persuasive. 5 months later, Ezra stipulated to infringement of the ‘229 patent if the district courtroom discovered the claims not invalid, expired, or unenforceable, and said that it will not current additional proof on the problems of statutory and obviousness-type double patenting. Novartis and Ezra subsequently filed proposed remaining judgments, and the district courtroom entered judgment in favor of Novartis on all grounds.

[[Advertisement]]

Ezra appealed, arguing that (1) Novartis violated Part 156 by successfully extending the time period of two patents—the ‘229 patent and the ‘565 patent; (2) the ‘229 patent is invalid as a result of obviousness-type double patenting as a result of the time period extension prompted the ‘229 patent to run out after the patentably vague ‘565 patent; and (three) there are coverage considerations with permitting a patent proprietor to increase his patent rights to an invention by means of a later-filed patent that isn’t patentably distinct from an earlier-filed patent.

The Federal Circuit first addressed Ezra’s argument that the extension of the ‘229 patent time period violated Part 156 by successfully extending the time period of the ‘565 patent as a result of the ‘229 patent covers a compound essential to follow the tactic claims of the ‘565 patent. In its evaluation, the Federal Circuit targeted on the language of Part 156, noting that:

Part 156(c)(four)’s language that ‘in no occasion shall multiple patent be prolonged underneath subsection (e)(1) for a similar regulatory evaluate interval for any product’ was meant to restrict a legally conferred PTE (not an ‘efficient’ or ‘de facto’ PTE) to at least one patent chosen by the patent proprietor. Right here, solely the ‘229 patent was chosen after which legally prolonged with a certificates of extension…That the tactic of the ‘565 patent can’t be practiced in the course of the ‘229 patent’s prolonged time period is a permissible consequence of the authorized standing conferred upon the ‘229 patent by § 156.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district courtroom that there’s “no purpose to learn ‘successfully’ as a modifier to ‘prolong’ within the language of § 156(c)(four).” As a result of Novartis glad all the statutory necessities for extending the time period of the ‘229 patent, the extension didn’t violate Part 156.

The Federal Circuit subsequent addressed the “interplay” between Part 156 and obviousness-type double patenting, together with Ezra’s argument that the ‘229 patent is invalid based mostly on obviousness-type double patenting as a result of the ‘229 patent will now expire after the purportedly patentably vague ‘565 patent. The Federal Circuit disagreed, discovering that obviousness-type double patenting doesn’t invalidate an in any other case validly-obtained patent time period extension. As help for its conclusion, the Courtroom cited its choice in Merck & Co. v. Hello-Tech Pharmacal Co., 482 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007), by which the Courtroom held that Part 156 doesn’t embrace any provisions excluding patents through which a terminal disclaimer was filed from qualifying for a patent time period extension. “We agree with the district courtroom’s statement that if a patent is terminally disclaimed to a different patent to beat an obviousness-type double patenting rejection after which term-extended beneath § 156 . . . it essentially will expire after the patent to which it had been topic to an obviousness-type double patenting rejection.” This doesn’t imply, nevertheless, that the prolonged patent is invalid based mostly on obviousness-type double patenting. Fairly, “if a patent, beneath its pre-PTE expiration date, is legitimate beneath all different provisions of regulation, then it’s entitled to the complete time period of its PTE.”

Lastly, the Courtroom addressed Ezra’s “coverage considerations,” together with its concern that Novartis was trying to increase its patent rights to the ‘565 patent by way of the ‘229 patent’s time period extension. The Courtroom famous that the current state of affairs didn’t contain the “conventional concern” with obviousness-type double patenting as a result of “[h]ere, it’s the earlier-filed, earlier-issued ‘229 patent, not the later-filed, later-issued ‘565 patent, that has the later expiration date . . . .” However for the § 156 PTE, the ‘229 patent would have expired earlier than the ‘565 patent.” The Courtroom famous that the current state of affairs didn’t contain any “potential gamesmanship challenge by means of structuring of precedence claims,” as in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014), as a result of Novartis didn’t try and safe a second, later patent on the identical invention.

The Courtroom declined to invalidate the ‘229 patent based mostly on obviousness-type double patenting and coverage grounds and held that the ‘229 patent was entitled to the complete time period of its patent extension till 2019.

Take Away

Obviousness-type double patenting doesn’t invalidate an in any other case validly-obtained patent time period extension (“PTE”) beneath 35 U.S.C § 156. A patent is entitled to the complete time period of its extension if the patent proprietor glad all statutory necessities in Part 156 and the patent is legitimate beneath its pre-PTE expiration date.

 

Picture Supply: Wikipedia. Licensed underneath the Artistic Commons Attribution 2.zero Generic license.

Robert Schaffer

Robert Schaffer

is an mental property associate at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies greater than 30 years of expertise to IP counseling and litigation. His work consists of patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional recommendation, due diligence investigations, district courtroom patent instances, and Federal Circuit appeals. He often handles complicated and high-profile home and worldwide patent portfolios, mental property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed courtroom instances Bob’s work consists of representing and counseling shopper in ANDA litigations, complicated patent infringement instances and appeals, and multidistrict and worldwide instances. In disputed Patent Workplace issues his work consists of representing and counseling shoppers in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For extra info and to contact Bob please go to his profile web page on the Troutman Sanders web site.

Robert Schaffer

Joseph Robinson

has over 20 years of expertise in all points of mental property regulation. He focuses his follow within the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical system fields. His apply encompasses litigation, together with Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in quite a lot of patent and trademark disputes in many various jurisdictions, and has additionally served as appellate counsel earlier than the Courtroom of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe additionally focuses on complicated inter partes issues earlier than the united statesPatent and Trademark Workplace, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His expertise consists of quite a few interferences, a specific benefit in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Workplace post-grant proceedings. He additionally counsels on patent–associated U.S. Meals and Drug Administration points, together with citizen petitions, Orange E-book itemizing, and trademark points. For extra info and to contact Joe please go to his profile web page on the Troutman Sanders web site.

Robert Schaffer

Dustin Weeks

is an affiliate within the mental property apply group at Troutman Sanders. His apply spans all areas of mental property regulation, together with patent prosecution, patent litigation (together with Hatch-Waxman litigation), and shopper counseling. He represents shoppers starting from start-ups and solo inventors to Fortune 500 corporations. Dustin works intently together with his shoppers to study their enterprise aims in order that he can tailor methods to acquire, shield, and implement their mental property. Dustin focuses on post-grant proceedings (e.g. Inter Partes Evaluations) earlier than the Patent Trial and Attraction Board (PTAB) the place he has in depth expertise representing each patent house owners and petitioners throughout a variety of applied sciences, together with wi-fi networking, prescription drugs, MEMs units, medical units, and electro-mechanical shopper units. Dustin’s broad expertise in patent prosecution, counseling, and patent litigation uniquely positions him to navigate the blended apply of post-grant proceedings.

For extra info or to contact Dustin, please go to his Agency Profile Web page.

About the author

Admin