IL 146954 to Genentech is titled “HUMANIZED ANTI-ErbB2 ANTIBODIES AND TREATMENT WITH ANTI-ErbB2 ANTIBODIES”. It is the national phase of PCT/US2000/07366. The active ingredient is Pertezumab.
Pertuzumab received US FDA approval for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer on June 8, 2012. Pertuzumab was developed at Genentech and is now owned by Roche which acquired Genentech in 2009. The drug received regulatory approval in Israel on 8 July 2012, and on 21 February 2013 a patent term extension was requested and this was granted until 11 May 2021.
The patentee requested an extension of time for responding to an Examiner’s action under Section 161 of the Israel Patent Law 1967. As explained below, the intended response relates to the intention to publish the grant of a patent term extension until the date awarded. However, the intention published in the July 2016 journal.
On 19 February 2013 the patentee requested a patent term extension for IL 146954. The conditions set out in Section 64e(5) of the Law were in place, but at that stage there was no extension to the basic patent in the US as required by 64d(5). In the January 2015 journal there was an announcement of the intention to grant an extension under Section 64e(5) 1 of the Law.
Afterwards, when the Section 64d(5) requirement was met, the patentee gave evidence of the patent term extension of the basic patent in the US. In that notice the patentee noted that they expected that the Examination would be completed and a corresponding extension of the patent would be granted.
Consequently, the Deputy Senior Examiner completed her Examination and, on 4 July 2016, informed the patentee that the patent was entitled to a 353 day extension until 10 June 2021, which is the length of the extension in the US, and is the shortest of all the extensions granted by an extension granting state, as per Section 64i(1) of the Law. The Patentee had until 18 July 2016 to respond to this notification.
On 18 July 2016, the patentee responded to this notification. From the wording of the response it is clear that the patentee does not have any problem with the mathematics used in calculating the patent term extension. However, the patentee noted their position that the Examiner should take into consideration not just the Patent Term Extension period in the US (PTE), but also the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) in the US.
Without substantive reference to the relevancy or otherwise of the Patent Term Adjustment, it is noted that until the patentee requested that the extension NOT be published, Genentech (Roche) had not raised Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) related issues and even now, did not provide details of the Patent Term Adjustment granted by the USPTO. So the Examiner was under no obligation to relate to this additional time period.
Once the period for responding had passed, and on receipt of the Patentee’s response, the Examiner informed the Patentee on 18 July 2016 that she intended extending the patent protection period in Israel by the Patent Term Extension (PTE) awarded in the US as per Section 65(e)(5)(3) and that this decision would publish for opposition purposes in the July Journal, and this happened. The request to extend the period for filing a critique was submitted on 11 August 2016, after the publication of the extension order. The contents of the critique, which has not been submitted, is unknown.
The reason put forwards by the patentee for the patent extension is based on the allegation that the current law damages their property rights and they are considering the possibility of changing the current legislation. Thus it follows that the patentee does not contend that the Examiner’s actions were in accordance with current legislation. The requested Extension is until the basic patent lapses, which is until 23 June 2020, or a further year if the Patent Term Extension is also considered.
Thus the patentee does not argue that the Examiner was acting in contravention of the law and admits that the Examiner’s actions were in accordance with current legislation. The Commissioner, Asa Kling, does not believe that a patentee’s intention to try to change the legislation is sufficient reason for the Israel Patent Office to delay publishing its actions; particularly when the action has already happened and happened in accordance with the Law.
So the Commissioner does not see fit to extend the period prior to publication.
In a footnote, the Commissioner does not think that his refusal in any way adversely affects the patentee, since he can always submit a detailed request for recalculation under Section 164(c) of the Law.
In a recent decision the Supreme Court weighed in on a challenge to the patent term extension rules as being unconstitutional, and found that the legislative body can write the rules as it sees fit, to find a balance between the competing need of the drug developers to be able to profit from their investment and have an incentive to conduct research and development and to file applications, with the public good provided by competition, non-monopolistic markets with generic competition.
The specific issue of the differences in Patent Perm Extensions and Patent Term Adjustments was discussed in a February decision.
I can understand the drug manufacturers considering the current law unfair, but, in light of the amendment to the amendment, it does seem to reflect what the Knesset wants and has been upheld by the courts. I don’t think that Genentech – Roche will be able to have the Law changed.
Categories: drugs, Intellectual Property, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Agency, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Related, patent term extensions, Patents, PCT, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Section 64, Uncategorized, החלטת רשות הפטנטים, הצעת חוק, מחלקת סימני מסחר, פטנט, פטנטים, קניין רוחני, קנין רוחני