Jerusalem Post Publishes Write-Up on Teva System for Better Prescribing

June 16, 2014

drug variability

Former Employee and patent attorney Dr Moshe Treitel sent me a link to an article in the Jerusalem Post that describes a technology that Teva has developed for better diagnosing. See here for more details.

Quoting Judy Itzkovich’s article:

“As the average Israeli 65 years and older now takes seven different medications for chronic illness, the danger of drug conflicts and complications is high.
In this country, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are responsible for 4.1 percent of all hospital admissions, while it is 5.7% in Germany, 6.5% in Britain and a whopping 12% in Australia.”

The system, developed by Dr Ronni Shiloh, attempts to minimize adverse drug-drug interactions and to correct doses for specific patients by providing the doctor with a simple graphic interface or GUI on a smartphone or tablet, that summarizes a wealth of medical information in a simple and easy to comprehend graphical interface.

Drug interactions are a major cause of complications, particularly in the elderly. This product may save unneccessary hospitalization and expensive testing, to the benefit of patients, health funds and the Health Ministry alike.

 גילוי נאות – Full Disclosure

I drafted the patent application for Teva and am prosecuting it in various jurisdictions. They out-sourced to me, since despite being Israel’s largest IP firm (that’s Teva, not IP Factor!),  their extensive in-house patent capability is mostly pharmaceutical and molecular biology, whereas this is a computer based system.

Teva Announces Favorable European Patent Office Ruling in COPAXONE® Patent Proceeding

May 27, 2014

copaxone loepard spots

In a press release distributed by Business Wire, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  has announced that the European Patent Office issued a decision in favor of Teva in a patent opposition proceeding filed by Synthon BV, Mylan and an unidentified third party. On September 6, 2012, the three opponents commenced an opposition proceeding against European Patent EP 2 177 528, a patent for COPAXONE® (glatiramer acetate injection) that expires September 9, 2025.

In today’s hearing, the European Patent Office specifically determined that claims 1-12 of the ‘528 patent are valid. Therefore infringing follow-on glatiramer products would not be able to launch prior to patent expiry.

Teva’s at risk launch of a generic version of Atripla for treatment of AIDS withstands challenge in Canada

January 15, 2014

Atripla    atripla 3

On January 13, 2014, the Canada Federal Court dismissed an application by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, LLC and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.  under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance for Teva’s generic version of its Atripla® tablets (2014 FC 30).

Atripla® tablets are a combination of three anti-retroviral medicines that is used to treat HIV/AIDS.  The three active ingredients are efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Merck et al. sought an order prohibiting the Minister from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Teva until after the expiry of Canadian Patent No. 2,279,198  on February 2, 2018.  The 198 Patent disclosed and claimed novel processes for making a particular crystalline polymorphic form of efavirenz called “Form I”.  However, the only claims at issue were those that claimed Form I per se.

For Teva to infringe the patent, the patent has to be valid and Teva’s actions have to infringe.

Teva alleged that claims 1 to 3 of the Patent were invalid on several grounds, including obviousness, double patenting, claims broader than the invention made or disclosed, lack of utility and anticipation.

With respect to non-infringement, the central issue was whether the crystalline form of efavirenz in the Teva tablets (“Form Teva”) would convert to the claimed Form I during or after the manufacturing process.  As a preliminary point, Merck argued that an adverse inference ought to be drawn for Teva’s refusal to produce samples of its final tablets.  No adverse inference was warranted, however, since Form Teva could be made from a publicly available process and Teva had provided details of its manufacturing process.  With this information, Merck was able to perform experiments in an attempt to establish that Teva’s tablets contained Form I efavirenz.

Merck’s conversion experiments on Form Teva included grinding with a mortar and pestle, heating, and combined grinding and heating in an attempt to demonstrate conversion to Form I. 

Justice Barnes found that the experiments were irrelevant because they were not representative of the Teva manufacturing process.  Specifically, Merck’s expert did not grind the ingredients in a manner analogous to Teva’s manufacturing process. In the grinding experiments, the expert was unaware of the size of the samples that were ground, did not record the grinding pressure applied, and could not recall if he was present for the grinding.  As a result, the Court was unable to conclude that the energy applied during Merck’s grinding studies accurately approximated the forces applied during Teva’s manufacturing process.  Accordingly, the court found that Merck failed to meet its burden of proving that the Teva tablets will contain Form I efavirenz and the application was dismissed.

The Court declined to rule on Teva’s invalidity allegations, instead basing its judgment solely on Teva’s justified allegations of non-infringement.

In this respect, Justice Barnes noted that voluminous evidentiary record, the relatively short period of time remaining in the 24-month automatic stay period, and his finding with respect to non-infringement made it “unnecessary and probably unwise to attempt to resolve the validity issues.”  Nonetheless, Justice Barnes did observe that Teva presented a stronger obviousness case than was previously before him in the Mylan case which dealt with the same patent (2012 FC 1142).

Pfizer Settles Viagra Patent Litigation With Teva…Bit of a Letdown

December 17, 2013


NEW YORK, Dec 17, 2013 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Pfizer Inc. announced that it has settled its litigation against Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA Inc., relating to Pfizer’s patent covering the use of Viagra(R) to treat erectile dysfunction (sildenafil citrate 25, 50, and 100 mg tablets), which expires in April 2020 (including pediatric exclusivity). As a result of the settlement, Teva will be allowed to launch a generic version of Viagra(R) in the United States on December 11, 2017, or earlier under certain circumstances. Teva will pay Pfizer a royalty for a license to produce its generic version. The terms of the settlement agreement are otherwise confidential. Teva has received tentative approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its generic version of Viagra(R).

Teva obtains a licence to launch before patent term runs out. Pediatiric exclusivity? What are kids taking this for?

Copaxone survives attack by Mylan in Dutch Court

October 7, 2013


The District Court of the Hague (Netherlands) has rejected a patent revocation suit brought by Mylan B.V., a subsidiary of Mylan Laboratories Inc., against the patent covering Copaxone, a treatment for Multiple Schlorosis that is patented by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. The Dutch court upheld the validity of Teva’s European Patent, which will remain in force until May 2015. The favorable ruling follows a similar ruling by the English Court of Appeal in July 2013, which also affirmed the validity of Teva’s patent.

Teva’s patent for Azilect Survives Challenge by Mylan

September 24, 2013


Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. announced on Monday that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has issued a favorable ruling in the Company’s patent infringement lawsuit against Mylan regarding an Azilect (rasagiline tablets) patent which covers methods of treating Parkinson’s disease. The Court has upheld the validity of Teva’s patent.

Teva’s patent expires in 2017, and they are hopeful that this development will result in an injunction against Mylan launching a generic equivalent before then.

Teva said it filed a lawsuit suit against Mylan in October 2010. Similar lawsuits were filed against Watson and Orchid in October 2010, Apotex in May 2011 and Sandoz in April 2012. Teva reached settlement agreements with Watson, Apotex and Orchid earlier this year. Sandoz has agreed to be bound by a final judgment in the case against Mylan.

Win some lose some. Teva loses Copaxone cases in US, but the European Patent for Copaxone Upheld in UK

August 1, 2013

Generic versions of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries’ multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone are to go on the US market a year earlier than expected, with major financial consequences expected for the company.

The news comes as the result of a ruling in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 26 July, which upheld only four of nine patent claims to Copaxone asserted by the company.

The four patents upheld have an expiry date in May 2014, whereas one of those dismissed had an expiry date in 2015.

The effect of the ruling is that generics producers—including Teva’s opponents in the dispute, Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Novartis subsidiary Sandoz—will be able to release rival versions of the drug a year earlier than many industry members had expected.

Mylan CEO Heather Bresch said in a statement: “We expect that it will allow Mylan to launch its generic version of Copaxone on May 25, 2014.”

Since Copaxone reportedly accounts for 20 percent of Teva’s sales and around 50 percent of its profit, the financial results of the decision may be substantial for the company.

US UK flag

A statement from Teva following the US decision to invalidate patents related to Copaxone read: “Teva is disappointed with the court’s decision with respect to four of the 2014 patents and the 2015 patent and will appeal today’s decision.”

Nevertheless, despite having several related patents invalidated in the US by Mylan, Yeda’s European patent EP0762888  for the multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone which is licensed exclusively to Teva has been upheld in the UK High Court, successfully shaking off a threat from Generics (UK) Limited which is the UK trading arm of Mylan, who challenged the patent on grounds of non-inventiveness and ambiguity.

On 29 July, Lords Justice Alan Moses, David Kitchin and Christopher Floyd in the High Court of Justice for England and Wales  ruled in Teva’s favour and held that the patent to be valid. They also refused to grant a non-infringement declaration to Mylan, since Mylan failed to demonstrate technical differences between their products and Copaxone. The ruling by the High Court affirms the conclusion of a 104-page ruling by Justice Richard Arnold in the UK Patents Court in July 2012.

Teva CEO said in a statement following the ruling: “Thousands of patients in the UK and elsewhere depend on Copaxone for relief in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, and we are pleased that the English Court of Appeal has upheld the validity of the patent until its expiry in 2015.”

The UK ruling in favor of Teva upholds the patent in the UK, whereas in the US where Mylan managed to invalidate some of Teva’s patents, generic players such as Mylan will be able to market alternatives from May 2014.

Teva maintains that Copaxone is difficult to manufacture and so the generic equivalents should have to satisfy stringent FDA approval. They are considering appealing the US decision to the Supreme Court, but the chances of the appeal being heard are slim. Unless Mylan and TEVA coordinate their actions, which could be seen as delaying a generic launch, the discrepancy may lead to a price differential between the US and Europe and to smuggling of the generic equivalent.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 283 other followers