The U.S. Supreme Court handed Hikma Pharmaceuticals and the entire generic industry a big victory June 4 with its 9-0 opinion ensuring the future of skinny labels and correcting the Federal Circuit’s flawed understanding of infringed inducement.
Temperature matters when determining pH levels. Whether that level should be measured at a standard room temperature or refrigerated matters even more, at least in Actelion Ltd.’s infringement litigation against Mylan Inc. According to Johnson & Johnson’s Actelion, the pH level in epoprostenol, the key ingredient in its hypertension drug Veletri, should be measured at a refrigerated temperature when it comes to Mylan’s generic formulation.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma Inc. could either discourage the development of generic drugs under a skinny label or make innovators think long and hard about investing hundreds of millions of dollars in developing new indications for drugs already on the market.
Ever since Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. sued Eli Lilly and Co. several years ago, claiming Lilly’s migraine drug, Emgality (galcanezumab), infringed its headache treatment patents, the two companies have been on a litigation rollercoaster.
In handing a win to Regenxbio Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also cleared some leaves from the 101 patent eligibility threshold after years of Supreme Court decisions cluttering the passageway.
After passing on one skinny label case a few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to delve into the dark hole the Federal Circuit has dug for drug label carveouts that allow generic drugs and biosimilars to come to market even though some indications of the reference drug may still be protected by exclusivities or patents. The high court granted cert Jan. 16 to Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma Inc., which revolves around Hikma’s marketing of its generic version of Amarin’s blockbuster drug, Vascepa (icosapent ethyl).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has reversed a 2022 agency memorandum on discretionary denials of patent procedures, such as inter partes reviews.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit occasionally remands a patent litigation case to district court for a variety of reasons, as seen in a decision involving Trudell Medical and D R Burton.
In the latest salvo of the ongoing battle between Apple Inc. and Masimo Corp. over the use of a blood oxygen technology, a U.S. federal appeals court paused an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on Apple’s watches. Apple reported on Dec. 19 that it would pull the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Apple Watch Series 9 from its website on Dec. 21 and from its retail locations after Dec. 24, in response to an exclusion order issued by the ITC in October.
The roadmap and conservative substitution methods Amgen Inc. laid out to “enable” its genus claims for antibodies that inhibit PCSK9 to lower LDL cholesterol are “little more than two research assignments,” the U.S. Supreme Court said in a unanimous opinion handed down May 18 in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi SA that gave the win to Sanofi. The roadmap “merely describes step-by-step Amgen’s own trial-and-error method for finding functional antibodies — calling on scientists to create a wide range of candidate antibodies and then screen each to see which happen to bind to PCSK9 in the right place and block it from binding to LDL receptors,” the court said in the decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
