Cosopt Patent Remains Dead – Teva to Produce a Generic Version of the Glaucoma Treatment

April 11, 2011


A U.K. appeals court has rejected an attempt bid by Merck & Co. Inc. to revive a European patent covering Cosopt, paving the way for Teva UK Ltd. to push forth a generic version of the glaucoma treatment.
Merck & Co., is the second-biggest U.S. drug company. Teva UK is a subsidiary of Israel’s Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, the world’s biggest maker of generic drugs.
Teva sued Merck three years ago claims the patent shouldn’t have been granted after Merck filed the application in 1992. The Appeal upheld a November 2009 ruling that Merck’s patent lacked novelty or inventiveness was correct because experts in the field would have found the development to be obvious.
COSOPT (dorzolamide hydrochloride-timolol maleate ophthalmic solution) is the combination of a topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor and a topical beta-adrenergic receptor blocking agent.
Glaucoma is a disease of the optic nerve which receives light-generated nerve impulses from the retina and transmits these to the brain, where we recognize those electrical signals as vision.
Glaucoma is characterized by a particular pattern of progressive damage to the optic nerve that generally begins with a subtle loss of side vision (peripheral vision). If glaucoma is not diagnosed and treated, it can progress to loss of central vision and blindness.


Cubist and Teva Resolve Dispute

April 7, 2011

Cubist Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA) have resolved their dispute by Cubist agreeing to license its antibiotic Cubicin to Teva . Under the agreement Teva can start selling its generic version in June 2018 if Cubist is granted a six-month extension of marketing protection for pediatric use.

The patent is due to expire in September 2019. Without pediatric clearance, Teva may sell Cubicin starting in December 2017.

The case: Cubist Pharmaceuticals Inc. (CBST), v. Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc., 1:09-cv-00189-GMS, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).


Counting Sheep for Insomnia – Do sheep count???

March 9, 2011

Neurim’s appeal against the refusal of the UK Patent Office to issue a Supplementary Protection Certificate for Circadin has been referred to the European Court of Justice –the CJEU by the Court of Appeal.

Background

Before a new drug is allowed to be used, regulatory approval is required. This typically takes several years and the drug usually reaches the market towards the end of the 20 years of regular patent protection. It will be appreciated that to bring a drug to market costs hundreds of millions of dollars and very few potential drugs obtain regulatory approval and can be prescribed. There is generally believed to be a market failure in the regular patent regime in that the period over which the patent enables the company that developed a drug to sell at monopolistic prices is considered insufficient to enable the drug developer to recoup their investment and make a reasonable profit.

It is therefore argued that under the standard patent term, there is no incentive to develop and bring new drugs to market. Consequently, various countries that have drug development industries, or which are bullied by countries having drug development industries have adopted patent term extensions, or, as they are called in Europe, Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) which effectively extend the patent for up to an additional 5 years beyond the regular patent protection period of 20 years from filing.

There is, however, a catch. To prevent evergreening – extending patents indefinitely thereby preventing generic competition – such Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) may only be obtained following the first regulatory approval.

The case

Neurim, an Israeli ethical drug company has developed a revolutionary and patented treatment for insomnia based on use of the natural hormone melatonin. The drug, called Circadin, took 15 years to obtain regulatory approval from when their first patent application (European Patent Number EP (UK) No. 0 518 468) was filed on 23 April 1992.

On obtaining regulatory marketing approval in June 2007, Neurim requested an SPC under Art. 3(d) of the SPC Regulation EEC 1768/92 (now EC 469/2009), claiming that this was the “first authorization to place the product on the market as a medicinal product”.

However the British Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) refused the request on the basis that Circadin was not the first marketing authorization for Melatonin, since another party had obtained approval for “Regulin”, a melatonin medicine for sheep, back in 2001, issued by the UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate under Directive 81/851/EEC. The decision was appealed to and upheld by the court of first instance, and was then appealed to the Court of Appeal who has referred the case to the CJEU.

The Court of Appeal was required to interpret Art 3 of the SPC Regulation and determine whether a valid authorisation had been given for “the product” in question.

The UKIPO argued that melatonin was “the product” and therefore authorisation had been given when it was approved for use in sheep. Neurim argued that sheep were irrelevant – an SPC is just that: protection supplementing the protection of the basic patent. Therefore, as each patent can have its own SPC (but only one), the relevant Marketing Approval for that patent is a marketing approval for a product falling within the scope of that patent.

In the Court of first instance, Justice Arnold was of the opinion that the Regulation was clear, and upheld the IPO’s assessment of the relevancy of the sheep. The Court of Appeal was not so convinced:

Lord Justice Jacob:

“We consider that Neurim’s arguments are not only tenable: in our view they are right. Many kinds of valuable pharmaceutical research will not get the encouragement or reward they deserve if they are not. Pharmaceutical research is not confined to looking for new active compounds. New formulations of old active substances are often sought. Most are unpatentable but from time to time a real invention is made and patented.

Moreover there is much endeavour to find new uses for known active ingredients. The European Patent Convention 2000 has indeed made the patenting of inventions in this area clearer. Its effect is that a patent for a known substance or composition for use in a method of treatment is not to be regarded as old (and hence unpatentable) unless use for that method is known. It would be most unfortunate if second medical use patents could not get the benefit of an SPC.”

For more information, see: the SPC Blog here and here

Court of Appeal: Neurim Pharmaceuticals v The Comptroller-General of Patents [2011] EWCA Civ 228.

COMMENT

Neurim’s Circadin is the only ethical drug other than Teva’s Copaxone that has been developed and brought to market by an Israeli company. The patent in question, and the other patents in Neurim’s portfolio was drafted and prosecuted by my late partner, Dr Stanley Davis.

JMB, Factor & Co. weren’t involved in requesting the SPC in the UK, but have been involved in a corresponding request to the Israel Patent Office. Under current Israel Law (pending an amendment), the extension available in Israel is for the shortest extension granted by a country offering patent term extensions. Consequently, the extension in Israel may be invalid due to the UK case.

Strange things happen when prosecuting pharmaceutical patents. In Korea, a scientific paper relating to Melatonin in cod fish was cited against the corresponding application as rendering treatment by melatonin obvious. One would imagine that fish and humans have very different physiologies. By comparison, sheep and humans are somewhat similar, but Regulin is not a treatment for insomnia in sheep (I believe they count people to induce sleep).

Apparently Regulin improves the reproductive performance of pure bred and crossbred lowland sheep which are to be mated early in the season before the usual peak of reproductive activity. Regulin is recommended for use in Suffolk and Suffolk cross type flocks to cause lambing to start between early December and mid January and in Mule and halfbred flocks to start lambing between late December and mid February.

We await developments with interest.


Warner Chilcott and Roche Sue Teva Over Actonel

January 27, 2011

Following attempts by Teva to obtain regulatory approval of a generic form of Actonel (risedronate), used to treat or prevent osteoporosis and to treat Paget’s bone disease, Warner Chilcott Co. LLC and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. have launched a suit alleging Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. has infringed one of their patents.


Teva in court over Astra’s Seroquel

January 24, 2011

Israel’s Teva Pharmaceutical Industries has launched a High Court action in London to revoke the European patent for Seroquel, an anti-depressant developed by AstraZeneca.

Currently, no further details are available.


Afrin and Ephrine, confusingly similar or not?

November 30, 2010

Schering Plough filed a trademark application “Afrin” for decongestants, nose drops, nose moisturizer, nasal sprays and the like. Because there are eye-drops on the market that are called “Ephrine”, manufactured by Fischer Pharmaceuticals, that are spelled in Hebrew in a way that could be read the either way, the Israel Trademark Office refused the mark. On appeal, the agent for the applicant argued that eye drops and nose drops are very different, only one needs a prescription, one features the name in Hebrew and English and the other in English only. 

Since the two products are sold in pharmacies and are for similar products in the same class, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks ruled that there is a likelihood of confusion, particularly as neither product is for chronic use, but rather for treating occasional ailments, and so consumers could easily make a mistake. Due to the fact that the preparations are used for medical purposes, mistakes of this nature could have serious repercussions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The case: TM 216996 to Schering Plough


Late submission of Evidence Allowed in Opposition Proceeding Concerning an Israel Patent to Merck

October 27, 2010

 

In opposition proceedings number IL 172563, concerning a Merck patent application for “Phosphoric Acid Salt of a Dipeptidal Petidase-IV Inhibitor” Teva requested permission to submit an Opinion by a medical expert concerning experimental evidence conducted under his supervision.  The opinion was relevant, but the correct time for submission thereof was together with other evidence. 

The regulations for patent opposition proceedings in Israel and the general civil law proceedings require all evidence to produced at the proper time. Substantive issues generally take precedence over these formalistic requirements. Since Teva didn’t have the material at the proper time since the experiments had not been performed, there was no issue of bad faith in the late submission, which was not a delaying tactic since the evidence simply was not then available. However, this late-filed experimental evidence was crucial in determining whether Merck deserved a patent or not, and the scope thereof. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Patents ruled that late submission of the evidence was allowable, but awarded costs of NIS 5000 to Merck as a form of punishment to Teva for deviating from the correct procedure.

We now await the main ruling.

The case: Opposition re IL 172563 to Merck.


Teva Fails To Obtain Advance Notice Order Regarding Generic Copaxone

October 13, 2010

Judge Barbara S. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has denied Teva’s request for an order directing the generic-drug manufacturers Momenta Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz  to provide advance notice of their ability and intention to launch a generic version of Copaxone, an ethical multiple sclerosis drug developed by Teva.


Teva sues Mylan over Copaxone

September 24, 2010

Teva Pharmaceuticals has filed a complaint against Mylan, a generic drug maker this week, alleging infringement of four patents covering Copaxone, Teva’s ethical drug for treating multiple sclerosis. Teva filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

This is not the first time that Teva has sued Mylan over Copaxone. Teva previously filed a separate lawsuit against Mylan in October 2009 for infringement of multiple patents, including all seven “Orange Book” patents, covering the chemical composition of Copaxone, pharmaceutical compositions containing it, methods of using it and processes for making it. Those patents expire in May 2014 and September 2015. No trial date is scheduled.

We note that earlier this month, Teva managed to block generic Copaxone manufactured by Sandoz and Momenta Pharmaceuticals by obtaining a district court injunction.


US Appeals Court upholds Evista Decision against Teva

September 1, 2010

Teva have lost to Eli Lilly over Evista, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upholding a decision banning Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd from making a generic version of Evista. Eli Lilly’s patent protection won’t expire until March 2014.

However,the CAFC also upheld a decision by the district court in Indiana that some claims in two other Lilly patents related to Evista were invalid.

Evista, with sales exceeding a billion dollars a year, is used to treat osteoporosis in post-menopausal women.

The case: Eli Lilly and Co v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. No. 2010-1005, 1033.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers