1 / 31

PATENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT

PATENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT. Strategies for originators and tactics for generics Dr Denis Schertenleib Avocat & Solicitor Partner Hirsch & Associés Paris France ds@hirschlex.com. 25 years is both too long and too short.

renee
Télécharger la présentation

PATENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PATENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT Strategies for originators and tactics for generics Dr Denis Schertenleib Avocat & Solicitor Partner Hirsch & Associés Paris France ds@hirschlex.com

  2. 25 years is both too long and too short • Originators are burdened with increasing costs for developing drugs • Originators have less and less blockbuster drugs in the pipeline • The costs of novel drugs are perceived as too high even for developed economies HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  3. There is a real pressure for • Originators to increase the duration of their monopoly beyond 25 years. • Generics to break that monopoly. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  4. Second generation patents • These patents seek to protect a drug after the original patent on the drug has expired. • They protect some form of variation or improvement. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  5. Second generation patents - examples • Second therapeutic use • Crystalline polymorphs • Single enantiomers HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  6. Second therapeutic use • Claims to a further medical use of a substance for which a therapeutic use was known. • E.g. a claim to the use of aspirin for fluidifying blood whereas aspirin was known as a pain killer for decades. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  7. Second therapeutic use • Valid since EPO decision G5/83 if drafted in swiss type format: Use of product X for the manufacture of a medicament for treating illness Y • Until EPC 2000 validity was challenged at national level. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  8. 2nd therapeutic use – EPC 2000 • EPC 2000 clearly removed any ambiguity as to validity of 2nd therapeutic use. • EPC 2000 allows straightforward drafting of 2nd therapeutic use claim: Product X for treating illness Y HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  9. 2nd therapeutic use – dosage regimen • Can dosage regimen be a patentable new use: • Eg: Fosamax • known to use Fosamax every day at 10mg • Patent on use of Fosamax once a week at 70 mg HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  10. 2nd therapeutic use – dosage regimen • Problem with EPC as methods of therapy are not patentable. • Is a dosage regimen a method of therapy in disguise? HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  11. 2nd therapeutic use – dosage regimen • Under EPC case law : unpatentable (T317/95)…. • Until T1020/03. • BUT referral to enlarged EPO Board pending G2/08 • In the UK: unpatentable under Bristol-Myer Squibbs (2001). • But now under Actavis UK Ltd v Merck & Co Inc CA 2008: potentially patentable to follow EPO HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  12. 2nd therapeutic use – valid new uses • T290/86, T486/01, T189/95, T254/93 and finally T1020/03: • New illnesses (sildenafil: viagra® and now for pulmonary hypertension) • New patient groups (Diovan® for adolescents) • Overall : need to open a new field of clinical application HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  13. 2nd therapeutic use – invalid new uses • T486/01 – a claimed use characterised by giving more information about a mode of action all ready practised was not novel. • T836/01 - a claimed use which specified a different mechanism of action could be novel over prior art disclosing the same use as it opened new therapeutic possibilities HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  14. 2nd therapeutic use - infringement • It is not the product that is protected but the use. • There is a need to show intended use not merely possibility of use. • Need to resort to evidence such as advertisement, marketing authorizations, user notices (Wyeth v Abbott Paris Court of Appeal 2004) • What if stated illness is different from patented use: • Allergic rhinitis v hayfever • Alzheimer v alzheimer caused by a specified trauma • Reducing mortality form illness v treating symptoms of illness • Always remember the validity /infringement squeeze HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  15. Cristalline polymorphs • Complex molecules can crystallize in may ways: • Diamond, coal and carbon nanotubes are different crystal structure of the same compounds HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  16. Cristalline polymorphs • Different crystal structure can result from: • Crystallization parameters (solvent, temperature ) • Hydration • Cristal partners (co-crystals) HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  17. Cristalline polymorphs – relevance? • New polymorphs can have enhanced: • Stability and Shelf life • Improved production process and handling • Biovailability • Examples include: Ranitidine (Zantac®), Paroxetine (Deroxat®), Cefnidir (Omnicef ®) HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  18. Cristalline polymorphs – commercial relevance • Useful to extend patent monopoly if the market switches. • Generic that uses the “old” crystalline form can be seen as “outdated” even if no actual benefit result. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  19. Cristalline polymorphs – patent definition? • At present cannot be defined directly by structure • Need to show X-ray or Infrared absorption data. • These are akin to identification by fingerprinting HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  20. Cristalline polymorphs – Xray data • Atorvastatin: form V form VI HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  21. Cristalline polymorphs – Xray data • The products claimed are defined by selecting characteristic peak • Claim 1 : Crystalline atorvastatin hemi-calcium characterized by a PXRD pattern having peaks at 3.8, 8.0, 8.9, and 10.4±0.2 degrees 2 theta. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  22. Cristalline polymorphs – Issue with validity - Novelty • How different should X ray spectra be? • Should peaks be of different heights, different positions? • Lord Justice Jacob in Laboratoire Servier v Apotex 2008 CA: • “The individual peaks of the table should not have too much significance attached to them –it is the overall set that matters” HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  23. Cristalline polymorphs – Issue with validity - Novelty • Was the “new” polymorph already manufactured in the past? • Polymorphs are know to interconvert or revert spontaneously to other forms. • Servier v Apotex • Patented form a was the inevitable product of the prior art protocols. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  24. Cristalline polymorphs – Issue with validity – Inventive step • Often polymorph patents claim several new forms at once but do not state what the new polymorph is for? • Often polymorph patent make vague claims about improved stability with no data • Problems with inventive step under the EPO problem/solution approach. • Is there an invention or a crystalline oddity? HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  25. Cristalline polymorphs – Infringement • What if some peaks are different? • What if the X ray spectra of the alleged infringement is more similar to the prior art X ray spectra? • The novelty/infringement squeeze • Evidential problems arise easily as excipient peaks (such as lactose) easily mask the relevant peaks. • The Lord Chief Justice in Servier v Apotex: “The evidence gave the case the spurious veneer of technical complexity” HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  26. Enantiomers • Molecules can have asymmetric shapes so that a mirror image of them is different form the original • They are called chiral HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  27. Chiral molecules • Chiral molecules can exist in the two mirror image form. They are called enantiomers. • A mixture of both enantiomers is called racemic • The two enantiomers are called the L and the D form (or + and – or S and R ). HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  28. Enantiomers – medical relevance? • Often drugs can exist in the L and the D form. • One form can be therapeutic and the other toxic. • Thalidomide: one enantiomer was therapeutic and the other was teratogenic. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  29. Enantiomers – commercial relevance: “patent and switch” • Useful to extend patent monopoly if the market switches. • Generic that uses the “old” racemic form form can be seen as “outdated” even if no actual benefit result. • Eg: Zyrtec® : racemic form of cetirizine outdone by the “new” L-cetirizine : Xyzall®. • Actual clinical benefit still controversial. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  30. Enantiomers – patentability • Novelty : T1046/97: enantiomers can be novel of the racemic mixture. • But are they inventive over growing literature in the last 20 years prompting the skilled worker to investigate individual enantiomers? • See T944/04 obvious to try out individual enantiomers • See Ranbaxy attack on Lipitor®; English Court of Appeal : skilled worked would investigate the properties of the enantiomers. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

  31. Enantiomers – defending infringement claims • Extrinsic evidence of speculative results. • Some patentee file on the same day pairs application each directed to one of the two enantiomers. • But is this an invention or a wild guess? • Patent require some credible evidence of claimed effect: see T1329/04, T609/02 and T715/03. HIRSCH & PARTNERS

More Related