IL 117459 “DNA ENCODING HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS TYPE 18” to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. was filed on 13 March 1996, and is due to expire on 13 March 2016.
Back in August 2007 a Request for Patent Term Extension was filed based on the commercially available preparation Gardasil. The pharmaceutical preparation contains four active ingredients: Protein L1, types 6, 11, 16 and 18.
The patent claims the Protein L1 type 18 as a product of genetic engineering. The patent relates to the other types of Protein L1 except for HPV 6 L1 for which no patent applications were submitted anywhere. The protein HPV 16 L1 was not claimed in any patent application filed in Israel. HPV 11 L1 was claimed in IL 117591 and expires on 21 March 2016. However, no applications for patent term extensions were filed for this protein.
The legal question that this decision addresses is whether a patent term extension can be requested for a patent that protects only one active ingredient of a pharmaceutical preparation.
The claims of IL 117459 cover a gene sequence of Protein L1 type 18, a vector including the gene sequence, a cell embodying the vector a process of expressing the gene sequence and a preparation that causes a vaccination to the protein including the gene sequence.
The senior examiner considers that Gardasil includes four proteins and any changes in any of them or preparations of three or less will result in a different medicament. Consequently, she considered that there is an inconsistency between the medicine and the claimed invention, in that not all the active ingredients of the claimed invention are in the basic patent.
The Applicant countered that claim 12 of IL 117459 covers a composition that includes (inter alia) HPV 18 L1 and thus the patent does not limit itself to this substance. Consequently, Applicant claims that IL 117459 is a basic patent as defined in Section 64a of the Israel Patent Law 1967 and as referenced in Section 64d. The Law does not require that a basic patent should include all active ingredients of a commercial product, and only one such active ingredient need be listed. Support for this interpretation was argued based on the wording of 64h(d) which relates to an active ingredient included in a preparation and claimed in the basic patent
The Applicant alleged that interpretations that a basic patent should include all active ingredients of the commercially available preparation is contrary to the underlying logic of the legislation and it is unreasonable to include such a limitation by judicial interpretation.
The senior examiner rejected these arguments and the Applicant requested an oral hearing which was held on 28 October 2014 and the Applicant was granted until 10 December 2014 to submit a summary of his arguments.
Section 64d states:
The Commissioner should not grant a patent term extension unless all the following apply:
- the composition, process for its preparation and usage thereof, medical preparation including the composition, its process for preparation and medical equipment are claimed in a basic latent that is in force.
Section 64a defines the terms ‘composition, ‘medical preparation’ and ‘basic patent’ as follows:
- Medical preparation – any form of medical drug that has been processed, including preparations for veterinarian applications and those having nutritional value that are injected intravenously.
- Composition – the active ingredient or salts, esters, hydrates or crystals of the composition.
- Basic Patent – a patent protecting any composition, production method, use, medical preparation including the composition, or any medical equipment requiring regulatory approval in Israel.
Based on the court ruling concerning the Appeal to patent term extension for IL 97219 to Novartis (26/12/2005) the term composition means a single active ingredient.
In Novartis, then Commissioner Dr Meir Noam (himself a chemist) ruled that the term basic patent in both Section 64a and 64d relates to the first patent that protects an active ingredient and that the term composition is in the singular, implying that one new ingredient is sufficient and that novel combinations of known ingredients cannot be considered as a basic patent. A preparation that includes one new ingredient that requires regulatory approval may be protected by extending a basic patent. Combinations, aggregations and synergies of known ingredients may be patentable but such patents are not basic patents.
In this instance, the issue is the regulatory approval of a combination of active ingredients, not the basic patent. Gardasil includes four active ingredients. Each one provides a parallel vaccination effect and maintains its pharmaceutical character. The four proteins are separately synthesized by fermentation in recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae (a species of yeast) but are combined into one treatment for economical reasons and due to ease of use.
(HPV Type 16 L1 and HPV type 18 L1 are also components of the registered drug Cervarix registered to a third party, and the proteins are each separately active. However, Cervarix was registered after Gardasil).
Since the drug Gardasil comprises four separately active ingredients that each has an independent effect and do not work as a synergy, the Commissioner accepted that Gardasil could serve as the first regulatory approval of HPV type 18 L1. He found support in the ruling fo Judge Dotan in the Novartis case. He noted that Merck could have requested regulatory approval for the four proteins separately and the discussion would be moot. Finally, citing the Neurim ruling (13281-06-12 based on the ECJ ruling that Melatonin for treating insomnia was not obvious in light of veterinary treatment for causing sheep to rut earlier), it is clear that the purpose of the Law is to provide patent term extensions for new types of treatment, and there was no reason why the Applicant should have had to register each active ingredient separately.
Furthermore, in Appeal 223/07 Lundbeck vs. Unipharm it was ruled that patent term extensions should be analyzed from an IP perspective and not from a pharmaceutical perspective. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling.
Furthermore, in the medical register, Gardasil is listed as including four active ingredients, including HPV 18 L1, and this is, indeed, the first medical registration of this ingredient in Israel.
Consequently, based on the extension awarded in the UK for EP 1359156, the Israel patent was extended 493 days to 19 July 2017.
Ex Partes ruling concerning patent term extensions to IL 117459 “DNA ENCODING HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS TYPE 18” to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. by Commissioner Asa Kling, 11 January 2015.
This is a publication of an ex-partes ruling. It is possible that local generic manufacturers such as Teva or Unipharm may challenge this.
Categories: drugs, Intellectual Property, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, patent term extensions, Patents, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Teva, פטנט, פטנטים, קנין רוחני