Case Filed: Apr 29, 2014
Origin Case: 1:08-cv-00627
Case Summary:
Hoffmann-La Roche, Proctor &
Gamble (P&G) and Warner Chilcott Company filed a patent infringement
complaint in Sep 2008 against Teva in response to its filing an amended ANDA to
market a generic version of P&G’s drug product, Actonel.
The patents involved in the suit
are:
- US7192938 entitled ’Method of treatment using bisphosphonic acid,’ issued on Mar 20, 2007 and expiring* by May 10, 2022
- US5583122 entitled ‘Pharmaceutical compositions containing geminal diphosphonates,’ issued on Dec 12, 1996 and expired* on Dec 10, 2013
- US6165513 entitled ‘Film-coated tablet for improved upper gastrointestinal tract safety,’ issued on Dec 26, 2000 and expiring* by Jun 10, 2018
The ‘938 patent was originally
issued to Hoffmann-La Roche and the ‘122 and ‘513 patents were originally
issued to P&G. Currently the patents
are assigned+
to Warner Chilcott (source: MaxVal’s Assignment
Database.)
Actonel is the commercial
formulation of risedronate sodium developed and manufactured by P&G. The
complaint stated that the drug product is covered by the claims of the
patents-in-suit. P&G is the current holder± of Actonel approved by FDA for 30, 5,
35, 75 and 150 mg (source: Patent Marker).
Actonel is used to prevent and
treat certain types of bone loss (osteoporosis) in adults. This medication
works by slowing bone loss to help maintain strong bones and reduces the risk
of broken bones (fractures.)
According to the complaint,
P&G received a notice letter from Teva regarding the amended ANDA filing for
Actonel generics and will engage in manufacture after receiving approval from
FDA. Teva also asserted that claims of the ‘938, ‘122 and ‘513 patents are
invalid. Plaintiffs believed that the amended ANDA products have the same
active ingredients, dosage forms and are bioequivalent to Actonel.
In each of the three counts of
infringement brought against Teva, the complaint was common, stating Teva’s
amended ANDA (no. 79-215) submission
intended to commercialize the generics that infringe the patents-in-suit, prior
to expiration.
P&G requested a court order enjoining Teva from
manufacturing the accused product until after the expiration of the asserted
patents and award them with reasonable costs.
A few other cases asserting the same
patents were consolidated, and defendants included Apotex, Mylan and Sun. The
case came to an end in Apr 2014 with judgment favoring defendants against
plaintiffs. The Court considered the patents-in-suit invalid due to fact that
prior art disclosed the efficacy and safety of high doses of risedronate,
rendering the patents-in-suit obvious.
The judge granted a joint motion for summary judgment of
invalidity filed by Teva, Apotex, Mylan and Sun, while denying the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment of infringement.
Warner Chilcott filed an appeal
challenging the district court’s
decision of considering the
patents obvious.
See 2014-1439
for more details. To get alerts on cases filed/closed, subscribe to our
Litigation Alerts.
Max-Insight enables you to access all of our patent tools such
as Patent Term Estimator, Patent Family Tree, Has This Patent Been Litigated,
etc. in one location. Max-Insight is available in 4 different
subscriptions: Free, Bronze, Silver and Gold with
varying usage levels. To learn more about Max-Insight, click here.
* Expected expiration date. Patent Term Estimator is a
free web-based tool that automatically calculates patent terms and expiration
dates for U.S. utility patents.
+ MaxVal offers Patent Assignment Alert service where
subscribers receive email alerts when assignments relating to target
applications, patents or entities of interest are recorded.
± Patent
Marker provides an online environment where patentees can virtually mark
products and search products for patent-related information.
No comments:
Post a Comment