Following all of the latest IP developments in life sciences.

(Co-authored by Chelsea Loughran)

Scores of lawyers and stakeholders in the biologics industry had been eagerly awaiting guidance from a federal district court in the In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, which was filed in March 2019 by indirect purchasers of Humira^® alleging anticompetitive behavior on the part of Humira^® manufacturer, AbbVie Inc. (AbbVie). On June 10, 2020, Northern District of Illinois Judge Manish Shah granted AbbVie’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs’ antitrust allegations were too speculative and therefore insufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The decision suggests that patent “evergreening” practices akin to those the plaintiffs allege AbbVie has exercised will still be available to innovators who wish to find ways to increase patent term on their marketed reference biologics and maintain a dominant position in the market.

(Co-authored by Suresh Rav, Summer Associate)

Overview

On July 6, 2020, the Federal Circuit affirmed denial of Genentech’s motions to enjoin Amgen from marketing MVASI™ (bevacizumab-awwb), a biosimilar version of Genentech’s AVASTIN® (bevacizumab), an anti-angiogenic agent indicated for treating metastatic colorectal cancer in combination with certain other chemotherapies. The Federal Circuit held that filing a supplement to a previous biosimilar application does not trigger new notice requirements unless the biologic itself has changed. Both the district court and the Federal Circuit focused on the statutory language of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), particularly the relationship between § 262 (l)(8)(A) “Notice of Commercial Marketing” (“subsection (l)(8)(A)”) and § 262 (k) “Licensure” (“subsection (k)”). The Federal Circuit concluded that changes made under subsection (k) that do not alter the biosimilar’s chemical or biological structure do not require new notice under subsection (l)(8)(A).

As any involved party can confirm, patent litigation is often not the most economical method of resolving a dispute. Typically, the “American Rule” is that each party must pay for its own litigation costs, but 35 U.S.C. § 285 allows for a court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional” cases. The question before the court in Amneal v. Almirall was whether this statute is broad enough to cover those fees incurred by the prevailing party for work done before the PTAB. Under the facts of the case, the Federal Circuit concluded that it is not.

Overview

On August 27, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s determination that Genentech’s Hemlibra® (emicizumab-kxwh) product for treating hemophilia did not infringe Baxalta’s US Patent No. 7,033,590 (the ‘590 patent) because it found the lower court had erred in its claim construction of “antibody” and “antibody fragment.”

Background and Issue Presented

Hemophilia is a rare blood clotting disorder characterized by an underlying malfunction in the coagulation cascade. A critical step in the cascade is the formation of a complex between activated factor IX (FIXa) and activated factor VIII (FVIIIa) which then goes on to activate factor X (FX). Hemophilia develops when this complex is unable to form, due in many cases to the development of self-antibodies that inhibit FVIIIa, thereby blocking the activation of FX. The disclosed and claimed invention in the ‘590 patent relates to antibodies against FIXa that take the place of FVIIIa and result in the activation of factor X by FIXa even in the absence of FVIIIa. Thus, rapid blood coagulation may be achieved in hemophiliacs with FVIIIa inhibitors by administering the claimed anti-FIXa antibodies.

(Co-authored by Kevin Mosier)

Overview

Cell-free fetal DNA technology was again the centerpiece of a dispute between plaintiffs Illumina and Verinata Health (referred together as Illumina), and defendants Ariosa Diagnostics and Roche Molecular Systems (referred together as Ariosa) in Verinata Health, Inc., et al v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 18-2198 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2020). At issue in the case was Ariosa’s pre-natal diagnostic test marketed as Harmony®. While Section 101 eligibility was not at issue, the Federal Circuit provided important commentary related to enablement and availability of injunctive relief, affirming a jury determination of validity in view of an enablement challenge, largely based on the referenced prior art and other evidence not strictly tied to the disclosures in the patent itself. Specifically, the jury below found that Harmony® infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,955,794 (‘794 patent) and 8,318,430 (‘430 patent), held by Illumina and Verinata Health, respectively. The district court denied Ariosa’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the validity of the ‘430 and ‘794 patents and its motion for JMOL on infringement of the ‘794 patent. The district court also denied Illumina’s post-trial motions for a permanent injunction and supplemental damages. The parties filed cross-appeals on the denials of these motions, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denials. The court also declined to issue an injunction, citing the parties’ respective sales models as evidence that irreparable harm was lacking.

Overview

The Federal Circuit upheld the US District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision that generic Slayback Pharma did not infringe Eagle Pharmaceutical’s patents covering its anti-cancer drug, BELRAPZO®, because Eagle was barred from applying the doctrine of equivalents under the disclosure-dedication doctrine to capture Slayback’s generic product, which included ethanol instead of the claimed propylene glycol (PG). The court found that Eagle disclosed ethanol as an alternative solvent to PG, but failed to claim it, thereby dedicating ethanol to the public. The court also determined that the application of the disclosure-dedication doctrine was permitted at the pleadings stage.

There is always a danger in raising an argument for the first time on appeal. The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Boston Scientific Neuromodulation v. Nevro (No. 2019-1584) provides yet another example of this particular peril. 

The case began with Nevro filing an IPR petition challenging the validity of a Boston Scientific patent that claimed an implantable medical device that stopped “listening for” one type of “telemetry” (i.e. a wireless signal to program the device) when the battery level dropped too low, but continued “listening for” a second type of “telemetry” from the medical device’s wireless charging unit. 

In a preliminary response, Boston Scientific proposed a construction of “telemetry” to mean the “transmission of data or information,” which Boston Scientific contended the prior art did not disclose the second type of telemetry—the signal from the external wireless battery charger.

Overview

On March 17, 2020, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that two patents relating to diagnostic methods involving cell-free fetal DNA were invalid for lacking subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court reached its decision entirely on analyzing step one of the two-part Alice/Mayo test, finding that “the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept” and consequently did not need to reach the second step of the test. This decision adds clarity to the metes and bounds of patent eligibility jurisprudence because it suggests that a claimed method relating to a natural phenomenon may be patent eligible so long as concrete processing steps that go beyond merely observing the natural phenomenon are recited in the claim. Also, while the decision does not go as far as requiring a physical transformation or the production of non-naturally occurring material as a result of such processing steps, it may be instructive to consider whether a material not existing in nature results from performing the steps of the claim.

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Hospira v. Fresenius Kabi USA is the latest to show how the court handles allegations of inherency in life sciences patent litigation. Jonathan Roses dissects the case, addresses whether the court created a new burden-shifting framework for such challenges and summarizes lessons that parties on both sides on an inherency argument can take away from the decision. To read the full article, which was published in Westlaw Journal, click here.

Overview

On January 15, 2020, Hospira, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit’s December 16, 2019 panel decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. 2019-1067, 2019-1102 (Fed.Cir. 2019) in which Hospira lost on the issue of whether its EPO biosimilar manufacturing activities are entitled to Safe Harbor protections. The petition requested review on the question of “[w]hether 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) provides a safe harbor against infringement of patents claiming a method of manufacture, when the product manufactured is used to generate information for submission to the Food and Drug Administration (‘FDA’) in order to seek approval of a biosimilar drug.” Petition, page 1.  Hospira also alleges that the panel decision is contrary to the Safe Harbor precedent of the US Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, as well as erring in its claim construction by improperly “reading out a claim limitation” relating to the meaning of “mixture…of isoforms.” The Federal Circuit has yet to decide on the petition.