Israel returned to the US Special IP Report Blacklist

May 4, 2011

Back in 2010 we reported on an agreement reached between Israel and the US in Washington, where the Israel delegation, headed by the Israel Ministry of Industry, Trade Director General Sharon Kedmi agreed to amend the Israel Patent Law regarding pharmaceutical patent term extensions, in return for which, the US dropped Israel from the blacklist of countries with inadequate IP protection in the Special 301 report, relegating Israel to the watchlist only. See Israel to be Downgraded to US Special 301 Watch List and Proposed Amendment to Israel Patent Law made Public for more details.

Although a draft amendment was circulated to patent attorneys, IP lawyers and others for their comments, the amendment was never passed.

Consequently, Israel has been returned to the blacklist.

COMMENT

This development is not surprising. I don’t think the position adopted by the US is a more moral position or an objectively better balance between free market competition and patentee’s results, nor do I think the amendment is warranted. I see this as simply an example of US protectionist bullying.

Then again, paraphrasing the late great Groucho Marx, who’s interested in joining a club that would have them as a member?


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.


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.


Teva settles diabetes drug patent litigation with Takeda

December 22, 2010

Teva has announced reaching a settlement with Takeda regarding two Type 2 diabetes drugs, ACTOS and ACTOplus. Takeda has granted Teva a license to market an authorized generic version of ACTOS in the U.S. from August 17, 2012, or earlier under certain circumstances, and a license to market an authorized generic version of ACTOplus from December 14, 2012, or earlier under certain circumstances.

The combined annual sales of the drugs in the United States is approximately $4 billion.


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


Amending Claims after an Opposition is filed in Israel

November 29, 2010

Teva Pharmaceuticals filed an Opposition proceeding to Schwartz’ Pharma’s patent number 149567 titled “Stable salts of novel derivatives of 3-3 diphenylpropylamines”. In response, Schwartz cancelled a dependent claim and filed a new dependent claim.

During opposition proceedings the applicant is allowed to delete claims and to narrow the scope of the claim set, but is filing a new dependent claim permissible narrowing, is it prohibited?

This question is addressed by the Adjudicator of Intellectual Property, Ms Shoshani Caspi, in an interim decision.

Background

During patent examination in Israel, the applicant has a lot of leeway in amending the claims. Providing the amendments are fairly supported by the specification, the applicant can widen the claim set and can change their focus. Prior to publication for opposition purposes, divisional applications may be filed for inventive material supported by the specification but not otherwise claimed.

During the opposition period, when, after allowance, the patent publishes and, for three months, third parties may file oppositions, in response to an opposition, the applicant may narrow the scope of the claimed invention. 

According to section 65, after issuance, the applicant may file amendments to clarify or to correct a mistake may be made, or the claims may be narrowed. Section 66 requires the Commissioner to ascertain that the amendment does not add new material not supported by the specification and does not widen the scope of protection.

The applicant narrowed claims 1-5, 8-11 and 16, by specifying the preparation in more detail, narrowed claims 1,3 8 and 10 by defining a group R as being specifically isopropyl,  and deleted claim 17. These changes are certainly narrowing individual claims, or deleting them and were allowed.

The applicant also wished to delete allowed claim 6 and file a new claim 6 claiming the salts of the preparations of the independent claim.

The question addressed by Shoshani Caspi is whether the new claim 6, that adds a limiting feature to independent claim 1 is considered permissible as it does not widen the scope of protection of the patent, but merely adds a limitation to that claimed in the main claim, or is it considered inadmissible as it is not clearly a restriction to the scope of any claim – since claim 1 is still on record, and this is a dependent claim?

Essentially the issue is whether adding additional claims that could be opposed on their merits and could create new fallback positions, but don’t necessarily widen the scope of protection requested, can be filed during opposition proceedings, or whether the only amendments allowed are those designed to narrow the argument and are to be allowed if they are giving up of monopoly rights without a fight.

Judicial review Officer Shoshani Caspi framed the question as to whether Sections 65 an 66 should be considered together, or whether the applicant could file an amendment claiming that the scope of the claim set was not widened and the Commissioner should then check that this is the case.

The opposer’s position was that stepwise analysis of section 65 followed by section 66 was required, and each amendment should be classified as a correction, clarification or narrowing of a specific claim, whereas the applicant considered this overly formalistic and the question to be addressed was whether the scope of the claim-set was widened – which would not be allowed.

Despite noting precedents for such amendments, Shoshani Caspi ruled that the amendment was inadmissible and that henceforth amendments during oppositions should clearly fall into one or other category and any narrowing of the claim set should be clearly narrowing the scope of a specific claim.

The allowed amendments were restricting the range of species listed in Markush type claims. The Claim 6 amendment was not allowed.  Costs of NIS 8000 were awarded to Teva.


Book Review: Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, and Biotechnology, fundamentals of Global Law, Practice and Strategy

November 17, 2010

Written by senior IP counsel at Novartis, Philip Grubb and Peter Thomsen, both also lecturers in academia, this book is a well-written authoritative overview of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, chemistry and genetics that is a “must read” for practitioners and industrialists in this area.

Whilst it is clear that the authors are biased towards the drug development industry, the genetic viewpoint is covered as well and there is an attempt to be fair. The authors acknowledge that most genetic challenges are aimed at secondary patents that attempt to prolong the period of protection and there is even an admission that sometimes patent applications are filed where it is difficult to argue inventive step or even novelty, and the pejorative term evergreening is used to condemn such activities that bring the drug development industry into disrepute.

The book covers the legislative development and main case-law, comparing and contrasting between the practice in the UK, US, Japan and Continental Europe, particularly Germany and the Netherlands. The book is very strong on historical development of the patent system, both for the main regimes, and their former colonies. Thus, where the problems of protection in the developing world is discussed, particularly Latin America, it is pointed out that Spain and Portugal lacked protection for pharmaceuticals until joining the EEC in 1980, which does put things into perspective.

The book has five parts.

Part 1 provides an introduction and background to the Modern Patent System, discussing the nature and origins of patent rights and follows the early history and the historic development over two centuries in the UK and the USA. The evolution of the law in other industrial countries is covered, albeit less thoroughly, and the state of affairs in developing countries is discussed as well. Trends towards harmonization of patent law are discussed at length, particularly the state of affairs in Europe and TRIPS, and criticisms of TRIPS are related to.

In part 2, substantive patent law and procedure is reviewed. The range of patentable inventions is discussed, followed by an overview of what should be filed, when and where. This leads into a discussion of filing abroad, the Paris Convention, European patent applications and the PCT system, and follows with a discussion of petty patents. The examination procedure, allowance, oppositions and maintenance are discussed, followed by the requirement to work the patent and forced licenses. This naturally leads into chapters covering enforcement and invalidity and post grant amendments. Although this section is not specific to the chemical, pharma and biotech industries, it is written from this angle and an overview of patent term extensions and supplementary certificates is included.

One of the strongest sections is Part 3, which discusses the patentability of inventions in specific technical fields. The chapter on chemical inventions includes selection inventions and disclaimers, protecting compounds of unknown structure and synthesis and new uses. Pharmaceutical inventions are covered broadly, including secondary pharmaceutical uses. Supplementary Protection Certificates are discussed together with other exclusivity periods. The chapter on biotechnical inventions managed to concisely various developments including recombinant DNA and Monoclonal Antibodies. The chapter was a well written introduction to the science. The question of patenting life, and transgenic animals and plants is covered, and the morality aspects were covered, albeit largely dismissively. Surprisingly, there was a chapter on software and business methods. This was justified as these fields are often of importance to chemistry and life science players, and case law in one controversial field, may have a knock on effect elsewhere.

The fourth section covers patenting in practice. The difference between US patent agents and patent attorneys is explained, as are licensing requirements in Europe. The expected formal education, general perspectives and areas of competence of newly qualified practitioners in different jurisdictions are compared and contrasted. The application itself is systematically discussed, in terms of the purpose and scope of the background, sufficiency of disclosure, length of text, purpose of claims and the various forms. In addition to Markush, Jephson and Swiss type claims, ‘free beer’ claims – i.e. claiming a desirable result without adequate disclosure and ‘pickled onion’ claims, i.e. the danger of being overly broad in claim drafting, and including well established prior art, were also discussed.

The fifth section covers commercial exploitation. The issue of inventorship is discussed, together with the rights of the inventor in various jurisdictions. The various patenting strategies of different players, such as start-ups, established companies, individual inventors, universities and patent trolls is compared, and the use of patents by pharmaceutical companies is contrasted with the use by microelectronic industries. Infringement and licensing are covered from the perspectives of the patentee and the user, and the various considerations concerning licenses, contracts and agreements between different types of entities is discussed in a manner that makes it clear that the authors have considerable practical experience. The final chapter looks at competition law in Europe and the US, and here the authors are refreshingly sarcastic about probes and position papers written by well-meaning, but ignorant quangos and government committees. A useful glossary and index are also included.

Despite being impressed by and generally enjoying the volume which is well written and well-organized, I do have a number of criticisms regarding personal opinions of the authors regarding preferred practice:

  1.  The authors suggest formulating a policy of where to file, and adopting this as company policy, to be revisited only if the nature of the invention indicates consideration of different markets.
  2. The authors also advocate developing and managing IP in-house IP, pointing out that the general trend to outsource peripheral activities should not be extended to IP which, unlike IT support, etc., is of central importance to the health and business of the company. As a handbook written by experts, I would expect IP managers to look for and be influenced by such practical advice.

The problem is that for pharmaceuticals, as with other technologies, the IP strategy is built on the dual considerations of protecting potential markets and thwarting competitors. The importance and capabilities of difference countries varies over time in accordance with their economic development and with political change, both international treaties and changes of internal government. It is difficult enough to make decisions that will have an effect in several years time, with continuous monitoring of the situation and rethinking strategy. Deciding that historic practice should become policy that does not generally require revisiting is indeed a way to avoid protracted meetings, but it makes it increasingly likely that expensive patent portfolios will not provide adequate protection.

To this reviewer, a glaring lacuna is that the IP regime in Israel is ignored. Indeed, the only Israel link, was in the discussion on the doctrine of equivalents, where the Epilady case was discussed, and the workings of the German and UK courts was contrasted. Israel is a relatively small market of only some 7 million people, but Israel industry includes some major players. Teva is the world’s most successful generic drug manufacture and currently the fourth largest pharmaceutical group. Makhteshim is the largest generic specialist chemical manufacturer. Compugen has developed a computer gene analysis platform and is leading player is gene discovery and classification. In the past 5 years there have been many changes and the Israel patent office is one of a handful authorized to provide International Search Reports and written opinions for PCT applications. There are however, no specialist IP courts. Whether after due consideration, a chemistry, genetic or pharma company decides to file and prosecute patents in Israel or decides not to, this should be a decision. Israel is too important to be ignored. Although a single volume work cannot be comprehensive, I suspect that other jurisdictions are not given sufficient discussion either.

List price $175 – but already available for less on the Internet. Well worth the money.

Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, and Biotechnology, fundamentals of Global Law, Practice and Strategy, fifth edition, by Philip Grubb and Peter Thomsen, ISBN 978-0-19-957523-7 Oxford University Press 2010, 537 pages in hardback.


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.


Proposed Amendment to Israel Patent Law made Public

September 27, 2010

In the February 2010 issue of this newsletter, an article entitled, “Israel to be Downgraded to US Special 301 Watch List” discussed the fact that Israel was to be downgraded from the US Special 301 Report blacklist of countries that fail to protect copyright adequately, and would appear only on the watch list. This change was the result of an agreement reached during talks in Washington, where the Israel delegation was headed by the Israel Ministry of Industry, Trade Director General Sharon Kedmi.

The proposed amendments to the Israel Patent Law have now published for public comment. Essentially, if the amendment passes into Law, it will be possible to apply for an extension of up to five years for major pharmaceutical patents prior to the patent issuing in Israel. It will, however, be required for patent extensions to have issued in two countries: the US and a main European country (Italy, UK, Germany, Spain or France).

The Proposed Amendment is Number 803-10-2010-000073.

Comments

This proposal is an attempt to amend an amendment of an amendment. In 2006, Israel re-amended a poorly written amendment to the Patent Law from 2004 providing patent term extensions that allow local generic manufacturers to manufacture and export as soon as the main patent has expired in at least one of the other countries having patent term extensions.

The list of countries on the basis of which one could request a patent term extension in Israel if one received a patent there, is largely scaled back. The original list included Austria, Holland, Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Finland, Sweden and Portugal. It seems that the patent has to issue in the US and a European country, instead of one or the other. The proposed amendment may undergo further revisions before passing into law.

The present amendment appears designed to require that at least two countries of those providing patent term extensions have given regulatory approval for the drug before Israel can step in. This discriminates against Israeli manufacturers and does not appear to have any basis in anything other than protectionism of the US pharmaceutical industry.

What is very clear is that Israel is not being held to task for not fulfilling obligations defined in a multinational patent treaty managed by WIPO. Nor is the problem that Israel industries flaunt Israel Patent Law.

Rather, it seems that Israel generic manufacturers such as Teva, Unipharm, Perrigo and Rafa, are too effective at manufacturing generic pharmaceuticals and supplying global markets. This development strong arm tactics on the part of the US.

The section of the Law covering patent term extensions is highly contentious, due in large part to the lobbying powers of the pharmaceutical industry.

The original amendment to the Israel Patent Law was poorly written and then Deputy Commissioner of Patents Israel Axelrod interpreted the amendment to allow the applicant for the patent term extension to choose which country to base their application for extension on. I believe that the preamble to the proposed amendment makes his interpretation untenable.

The second amendment was designed to clarify the Knesset’s intent. Axelrod was transferred to the Beersheva district court instead of becoming the Commissioner of Patents. This position that was empty for quite a while until the incumbent, Dr. Meir Noam, assumed the reins.

The current amendment appears to be designed to require that at least two countries of those providing patent term extensions, allow manufacturing of the drug before Israel can step in. This discriminates against Israeli manufacturers and does not appear to have any basis other than protectionism of the US pharmaceutical industry.

Arguably there is nothing wrong with the US using their political and financial muscle to prevent other countries from encroaching on their markets. The trouble is that the Special 301 Report does not merely indicate which countries have manufacturing capability that challenges US preeminence. Rather, the report takes the moral high ground and lists countries as not fulfilling their international duties.

The GATT round of the WTO was designed to remove artificial trade barriers. Patent term extensions per se may be considered artificial trade barriers since they are technology specific. Nevertheless the type of amendment under consideration due to US pressure seems to be an artificial trade barrier. It remains to be seen whether the Knesset will have the courage to stand up against US pressure, or will give in to US industrial interests.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers