May 19, 2019

May 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

For the First Time PTAB Upholds Validity of Pharma Patents

On December 9, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) upheld the validity of three Supernus Pharmaceutical’s patents relating to once-daily formulations of doxycycline. The trio of decisions is significant because one of the three patents had been at issue in a Hatch Waxman litigation. The PTAB’s decision with respect to this patent marks the first time the Board has reached a final decision regarding the validity of a patent first put at issue in litigation filed under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

The patents at issue in the three decisions – U.S. Patent Nos. 8,206,740 (“the ‘740 patent”), 8,394,405 (“the ‘405 patent”), and 8,394,406 (“the ‘406 patent”) – all related to Oracea®, an antibiotic used to treat the chronic skin disease rosacea.  The ‘740 patent was originally asserted in a Hatch Waxman proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:11-cv-01106-LPS).  Eleven months after plaintiffs in that action amended their complaint to assert infringement of the ‘740 patent (which issued subsequent to the filing of the initial action), Amneal filed a petition seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ‘740 patent, thus challenging the validity of that patent simultaneously before the district court and before the PTAB.

On the eve of trial, nearly two and a half years into the litigation, Amneal amended the patent certification in its ANDA with respect to the ‘740 patent to include a paragraph III certification that it would not seek approval prior to the patent’s expiration.  The parties then filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, terminating the district court litigation.

At the same time Amneal filed its petition seeking inter partes review of the ‘740 patent, it also filed two additional petitions seeking review of the related ‘405 and ‘406 patents.  The ‘405 and 406 patents were continuations of the ‘740 patent.  Both issued well after the Hatch Waxman litigation began.  Neither the ‘405 nor the ‘406 patents were the subject of Hatch Waxman litigation, suggesting that Amneal may have also provided paragraph III certifications for those patents.

Amneal thus appears to have employed a deliberate strategy to proceed before the PTAB rather than the district court.  Amneal’s decision-making demonstrates how IPRs are increasingly being used by defendants involved in Hatch-Waxman litigation.  In this case, Amneal’s strategy was unsuccessful, as the PTAB upheld the validity of all three patents.  Whether future ANDA applicants will be more successful before the Board remains to be seen.

©1994-2019 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Peter J. Cuomo, Mintz Levin, Patent Litigation Lawyer, Expert Discovery Attorney
Of Counsel

Peter’s practice includes a variety of civil litigation, including trademark and patent litigation, trade secret disputes, and complex commercial litigation. Peter's primary focus is in patent litigation, and he has experience in many aspects, including expert discovery, MarkmanHearings, and pretrial motion practice.

Prior to joining the firm, he practiced in the intellectual property litigation practice in the Boston office of another international law firm. Peter has also previously worked in and supervised an academic laboratory...

617-348-1854
Adam Samansky, Mintz Levin Law Firm, Boston, Patent Litigation Attorney
Member

Adam’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. He handles patent, trademark, and trade secret matters on behalf of innovators and investors in a range of industries. His core practice includes patent and trade secret litigation involving complex technologies in the pharmaceutical, medical, high-tech, and defense industries. Adam has tried cases before multiple US District Courts, briefed and argued cases before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and has briefed bet-the-company issues before the US Supreme Court.

617-348-1819