Davita Inc., lost a U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding limits to the private payer coverage for outpatient dialysis services despite, a development that took a double-digit bite out of Davita’s shares. However, shares of competitor Fresenius also took a hit, suggesting that the market sees the decision as a major setback for both companies.
The U.S. Supreme Court shot down a rule June 15 that allowed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to sharply reduce Medicare reimbursement for Part B drugs to hospitals participating in the 340B prescription drug discount program.
Winding down its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13 declined to hear appeals filed by Insys Therapeutics Inc. founder John Kapoor and former regional sales director Sunrise Lee.
The U.S. Federal Circuit’s denial Feb. 11 of an en banc rehearing in a case that could undermine label carveouts and slow the launch of generics is the topic of hallway chatter at this week’s annual conference of the Association for Accessible Medicines.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of U.S. v. Arthrex might be seen as having fully resolved the interaction between the Appointments Clause and the inter partes review (IPR) process, but there are other controversies brewing, nonetheless. Patent attorney James Lovsin, of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP (MBHB), said on an Aug. 17 webinar that because the current commissioner of patents is only an acting commissioner, his review of IPRs may also be a violation of the Appointments Clause, thus invoking the possibility that some patent cases will be subject to additional administrative delays.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit didn’t change a thing in a trio of rulings stemming from Eli Lilly and Co.’s inter partes review challenges of several patents protecting Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s migraine drug, Ajovy (fremanezumab).
Citing a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in April that denied the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) ability to seek restitution or disgorgement, the FTC, on July 30, withdrew its remaining count against Abbvie Inc. involving sham litigation intended to delay generic competition to its blockbuster testosterone replacement drug, Androgel.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has responded to the Supreme Court ruling in the so-called Arthrex case, which affects how the agency will handle inter partes reviews (IPR) decided by administrative patent judges (APJs). PTO said litigants to IPRs can request a review by the director of the agency only in limited circumstances, however, potentially limiting litigants to one administrative path following an unfavorable IPR outcome.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up one piece of the 340B conundrum that’s pitting biopharma against hospitals and catching the Department of Health and Human Services in between. The case the court agreed to hear, the American Hospital Association (AHA) v. Becerra, focuses on whether HHS has the authority to cut Medicare reimbursement rates to reflect the steep discounts 340B hospitals get on certain prescription drugs.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. delivered its decision in the case of Minerva v. Hologic, a case that tested the boundaries of the doctrine of assignor estoppel, which bars a patent's seller (assignor) from attacking the patent's validity in subsequent patent infringement litigation.
