Litigation Update: May 2010 District Court Filings

Posted on June 8, 2010 by Brian Wm. Higgins

   The following cases are reported as being filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in May 2010 (source: Justia.com):

  • Patent dockets:
    • Genzyme Corporation v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., No. 1:2010cv01323 (filed May 24, 2010); this Hatch-Waxman patent infringement lawsuit was brought by Genzyme after Watson sought Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market in the US a generic version of the company's Renvela(R) drug product (sevelamer carbonate).  According to FDA information, Genzyme, based in Cambridge, MA, is the New Drug Applicant for this reference listed drug, which covers oral suspensions and tablet forms.  Renvela is indicated for "phosphate binding," and, according to Genzyme's website, is a "first-line monotherapy for controlling serum phosphorus in patients with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) — on dialysis without calcium or metal accumulation."  Genzyme's patent exclusivity reportedly extends until September 16, 2014.  
       
    • MIH International, LLC v. Weber Orthopedic, Inc., No. 8:2010cv01127 (filed May 5, 2010)

     
  • Trademark dockets:
    • Gifford's Dairy, Inc. v. Gifford's Holdings, LLC, Gifford's Ice Cream & Candy Company, Inc., and Deal Metrics, LLC., No. 1:2010cv01294 (filed May 20, 2010); Gifford's Ice Cream & Candy Co., based in Silver Spring, MD, calls itself Washington, DC's oldest ice cream company (with retail stores in Baltimore, Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and Rockville, MD, and downtown DC).  Gifford's Dairy, based in Skowhegan, ME, is the owner of the registered trademarks GIFFORD'S and GIFFORD'S ICE CREAM FAMILY OWNED THE ICE CREAM STAND ICE CREAM

  • Copyright dockets:
    • Advanced Education Systems, LLC d/b/a TrainingPro v. MTI Services Corporation d/b/a Mortgage Training Institute, No. 1:2010cv01253 (filed May 18, 2010)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Upcoming Conference Targets Bio/Pharma Industry

Posted on December 19, 2008 by Brian Wm. Higgins

     Hat tip to Philip Brooks for noting the upcoming Bio/Pharmaceutical Summit on Intellectual Asset Management Strategies to be held in Baltimore, MD, on January 20-21, 2009.  The Summit's organizer, The Center for Business Intelligence (CBI), plans a two-day, CLE-available conference that includes workshops covering the Hatch-Waxman Act, the MMA, the USPTO and expectations for patent reform, and conference presentations covering antitrust law and LCM, the expected implications of the EC Pharma Inquiry on Industry, tips for assessing your patent portfolio to assign value and identify risks and opportunities, and many others.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Associations Thwart DC's Drug Price Control Law

Posted on August 8, 2007 by Brian Wm. Higgins

Summary:  Federal Circuit affirms judgment declaring D.C.'s Prescription Drug Excessive Pricing Act of 2005 preempted by federal patent laws and enjoining its enforcement.


In Biotechnology Industry Organization v. District of Columbia, No. 2006 Civ. 1593 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court for the District of Columbia's judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs declaring the District’s Prescription Drug Excessive Pricing Act of 2005 preempted by the federal patent laws and enjoining its enforcement.  The Plaintiffs' complaint centered on the following provision of DC's law:

"It shall be unlawful for any drug manufacturer or licensee thereof, excluding a point of sale retail seller, to sell or supply for sale or impose minimum resale requirements for a patented prescription drug that results in the prescription drug being sold in the District for an excessive price. *** A prima facie case of excessive pricing shall be established where the wholesale price of a patented prescription drug in the District is over 30% higher than the comparable price in any high income country in which the product is protected by patents or other exclusive marketing rights."

Plaintiff Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ("PhRMA") filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Act was invalid in light of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and it was preempted by the federal patent laws. Plaintiff Biotechnology Industry Organization ("BIO"), which includes as its members nearly 60 Maryland biotechnology companies, filed a similar suit, which was consolidated with PhRMA's.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit stated:

"There is no express provision in the patent statute that prohibits states from regulating the price of patented goods; indeed, 'the federal patent laws do not create any affirmative right to make, use, or sell anything.'  Nevertheless, state law must yield to congressional enactments if it 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'"

The court then noted that "the value of patents lies in the patentees right to foreclose competitors from making, using, and selling the invention," which may allow them an opportunity to obtain above-market profits during the patent’s term.  As stated in the legislative history of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (popularly known as the "Hatch-Waxman Act"), "patents enable innovators to obtain greater profits than could have been obtained if direct competition existed. These profits act as incentives for innovative activities.  The court found that DC's Act stands exclusively within the scope of the patent laws, and its effect is to shift the profit incentive benefits of a patented invention from inventors to consumers:

"By penalizing high prices—and thus limiting the full exercise of the market power that derives from a patent—the District has chosen to re-balance the statutory framework of rewards and incentives insofar as it relates to inventive new drugs. *** The fact that the Act is targeted at the patent right is apparent on its face. It applies only to patented drugs."

Comments:

  • According to PhRMA's web site, "Winning approval [to market a new drug], on average, takes 15 years of research and development and costs over $800 million dollars."  Any effort that stands in the way of recouping that investment will likely have a target on its back from its inception.

  • Would the result of this case have been different had DC's Act not been directed "only to patented drugs"?

  • See Maryland Representative Chris Van Hollen's (D-MD) proposal for the states: Voluntary State Discount Prescription Drug Plan Act of 2007

  • Carol Leonnig's article in the Washington Post
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,