Life Sciences is an area ripe for trade secrets misappropriation litigation. In recent news, Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC filed a lawsuit under the North Carolina Uniform Trade Secrets Act alleging that its former director of federal accounts, Andrew Thomas, stole trade secrets relating to Merz’s flagship botulinum toxin drug Xeomin®. Those secrets purportedly included drug pricing strategies, marketing plans, market share data, and potential customer lists, all of which were intended to grow Xeomin®’s presence in the government market sector — a key therapeutic sector for Merz’s drug, which is primarily known for its aesthetic effects.
The U.S. Supreme Court on May 18, 2023 delivered its decision on the scope of the patent enablement requirement, set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, in the antibody dispute Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi. While the parties obtained finality, many in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries received the opinion under a cloud of uncertainty and concern for exclusivity rights broad enough to both protect clinical candidates and deter competitors. While the patent bar may remain apprehensive, the Supreme Court kept the door open to genus claims. The impact of the decision may not be as far-reaching as feared.
In Sawstop Holding LLC v. Vidal the Federal Circuit confirmed what many practitioners suspected— the Patent and Trademark Office will only award a patent term adjustment to offset a delay caused by appellate review of a patent prosecution if the appeal results in allowable claims ready for issuance.
The answer? Not much, in itself. If one patent is good, 132 is probably fine too. That was Judge Easterbrook’s reasoning in a recent decision addressing indirect purchasers’ antitrust challenge to AbbVie’s so-called “patent thicket” of 132 patents around the blockbuster drug Humira, arguing the sheer number of patents blocked…
BridgeBio’s recently announced sale of an FDA Priority Review Voucher for $110 million reflects a robust secondary market for these regulatory fast passes. Prices for Priority Review Voucher (“PRVs”) reflect the high stakes involved in the timing of the FDA review of a new drug application (“NDA”) or biologic license application (“BLA”). While the purchase of a voucher can help a drug’s sponsor shorten the time to market, it can also put immediate cash in the hands of the voucher seller seeking to tide itself over, particularly during a period of flagging investor interest in the biopharma sector.
In three previous blog posts, we have discussed recent inventorship issues surrounding Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and its implications for life sciences innovations – focusing specifically on scientist Stephen Thaler’s attempt to obtain a patent for an invention created by his AI system called DABUS (“Device for Autonomus Bootstrapping of Unified Sentence). Most recently, we considered Thaler’s appeal of the September 3, 2021 decision out of the Eastern District of Virginia, which ruled that under the Patent Act, an AI machine cannot qualify as an “inventor.” Continuing this series, we now consider the USPTO’s recently filed opposition to Thaler’s appeal.
Patent claim limitations that are “negative”—that is, claim limitations specifying the absence of a particular element from the patent claim—can pose a dilemma in the written description context. How much of the specification should be devoted to something that is not supposed to be part of the claim? The answer may be none at all according to a recent Federal Circuit decision, Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. The key, according to the decision, is that the specification should not describe the negative limitation in a manner inconsistent with how it is used in the claim.
After years of contemplation and delays, Europe’s Unified Patent Court will be operational in about one year. U.S.-based Life Sciences patent applicants should start preparing now to ensure that their applications withstand scrutiny under the new patent court.
In one of the first district court opinions applying the Federal Circuit’s recent GSK decision on induced infringement in the context of label carve-outs (the “GSK decision,” discussed here and here), Judge Richard Andrews in the District of Delaware held that plaintiff Amarin Pharma (“Amarin”) failed to plead facts sufficient to show that Hikma Pharmaceuticals’ (“Hikma”) carved-out product label and/or public marketing statements induced infringement of Amarin’s patents. The holding suggests that carved-out labels (so-called “skinny labels), despite the GSK decision, continue to provide some measure of protection from liability based on induced infringement.
Our previous blog posts, Artificial Intelligence as the Inventor of Life Sciences Patents? and Update on Artificial Intelligence: Court Rules that AI Cannot Qualify As “Inventor,” discuss recent inventorship issues surrounding AI and its implications for life sciences innovations. Continuing our series, we now look at the appeal recently filed by Stephen Thaler (“Thaler”) in his quest to obtain a patent for an invention created by AI in the absence of a traditional human inventor.