Chief Judge Northern District of Illinois Disputes IV Disputes Co… · Paragraph IV Disputes...
Transcript of Chief Judge Northern District of Illinois Disputes IV Disputes Co… · Paragraph IV Disputes...
Register Now • 888-224-2480 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC
Guy Donatiello Sr. Vice President, Intellectual PropertyEndo Pharmaceuticals
Timothy X. Witkowski, M.S., J.D.Executive Director & Executive Counsel Intellectual PropertyBoehringer Ingelheim
Distinguished Co-Chairs
Paragraph IV Disputes
American Conference Institute’s 8th Annual
Expert Insights on Hatch-Waxman Litigation Strategies for Brand Names and Generics
Supporting Sponsors:
Associate Sponsors: Sponsors:
April 30, 2014Master Class on Paragraph IV Dispute Settlements in the Aftermath of Actavis
Cocktail Sponsor: Private Dinner:Luncheon Sponsor:
On the 30th Anniversary of the Hatch-Waxman Act, join preeminent patent litigators representing brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies as they provide critical insights on:
• IPRUtilizationinHatch-WaxmanLitigation
• Akamai’s Anticipacted Impact on / Divided and Contributory Infringement
• TheGoodlatteBill’sProposedCodification ofObvious-TypeDoublePatenting
April 28-29, 2014 | The Conrad – New York | New York City
HATCH-WAXMANACI’s
s e r i e s
Earn CLE
ETHICS Credits
Industry Insights from:Boehringer Ingelheim
Bristol-MyersSquibb
Eisai Inc.
Endo Pharmaceuticals
ForestLaboratories
GileadSciences
ImpaxLaboratories
Merck&Company
Mylan
Novartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPar Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. PfizerIncSunPharma/CaracoPharmaceuticalLaboratories,Ltd.
FTC Keynote on ActavisMarkus H. Meier AssistantDirectoroftheHealthCareDivision, Bureau of Competition FederalTradeCommission
IPR Insights from: Hon. Brian P. Murphy (invited) Administrative Patent Judge PatentTrialandAppealBoard–USPTO
Judicial Insights from Chief Judges in Key Districts:Hon. Ruben Castillo, Chief Judge Northern District of Illinois
Hon. Leonard Davis, Chief Judge EasternDistrictofTexas
Hon. Gregory M. Sleet, Chief Judge District of Delaware
Hon. Garrett E. Brown, Chief Judge (ret.) District of New Jersey
Plus a Special Magistrates Panel on Local Rules featuring:Hon. Mary Pat Thynge ChiefMagistrateJudge District of Delaware
Hon. Tonianne Bongiovanni District of New Jersey
Hon. Roy Payne EasternDistrictofTexas
• Lighting BallastandInterimMarkmanStrategies
• RevisedSafeHarborExceptions
• GDUFA’sImpactonParagraphIVStrategies
• ExclusivitiesforCombinationProducts
• At-RiskLaunchesandDamages
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC2.
Acting Members
Mark Bowditch ExecutiveDirector,Head,USPatentProductSupport SandozInc.(Princeton,NJ)
Guy Donatiello SeniorVicePresident,IntellectualProperty EndoPharmaceuticals(Malvern,PA)
Lisa A. Jakob LegalDirector,IPLitigation Merck&Company(Rahway,NJ)
James P. Leeds AssistantGeneralPatentCounsel EliLilly&Company(Indianapolis,IN)
Jeffrey N. Myers, Ph.D. VicePresident&AssistantGeneralCounsel PfizerInc(NewYork,NY)
Carmen M. Shepard SeniorVicePresident GlobalPolicyandRegulatoryCounsel Mylan(Washington,DC)
David H. Silverstein, M.S., J.D. LegalDirector,IntellectualProperty ParPharmaceuticalCompanies,Inc.(WoodcliffLake,NJ)
Meg Snowden VP,IntellectualProperty ImpaxLaboratories(Hayward,CA)
Peter Waibel Head,USPatentLitigation NovartisPharmaceuticalsCorporation(EastHanover,NJ)
Timothy X. Witkowski, M.S., J.D. Executive Director & Executive Counsel Intellectual Property BoehringerIngelheim(Ridgefield,CT)
Emeritus Members
Stephen R. Auten Partner,ChairofPharmaceutical&LifeSciencesLitigation TaftStettinius&HollisterLLP(Chicago,IL) (Former Vice President, IP, Sandoz, Inc.)
George W. Johnston Counsel,GibbonsP.C.(Newark,NJ) (Former Vice President & Chief Patent Counsel, Hoffmann-La Roche)
Shashank Upadhye Partner,SeyfarthShawLLP(Chicago,IL) (Formerly Vice President – Global Intellectual Property, Apotex, Inc.)
Co-Chairs
Guy Donatiello VicePresident,IntellectualProperty EndoPharmaceuticals(Malvern,PA)
Timothy X. Witkowski, M.S., J.D. Executive Director & Executive Counsel IntellectualProperty,BoehringerIngelheim(Ridgefield,CT)
Speakers
Eric I. Abraham, Partner,HillWallackLLP(Princeton,NJ)
Meredith Martin Addy Partner,Steptoe&JohnsonLLP(Chicago,IL)
Stephen R. Auten, Partner, Chair of Pharmaceutical &LifeSciencesLitigation,TaftStettinius&HollisterLLP(Chicago,IL)(Former Vice President, IP, Sandoz, Inc.)
Bradford J. Badke Partner,Ropes&GrayLLP(NewYork,NY)
Nicolas Barzoukas Partner,BakerBottsL.L.P.(Houston,TX)
Thomas H. Beck, Partner,SidleyAustinLLP(NewYork,NY)
Gregory K. Bell,GroupVicePresident,GlobalPracticeLeader–LifeSciences,CharlesRiverAssociates(Boston,MA)
Bob Billings, SpecialAdvisorytothePresidentandCEO GenericPharmaceuticalAssociation(Washington,DC)
Honorable Tonianne Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. UnitedStatesDistrictCourt DistrictofNewJersey(Trenton,NJ)
Honorable Garrett E. Brown, U.S.D.J. (ret.) FormerChiefJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourt DistrictofNewJersey(Trenton,NJ) Neutral,JAMS,TheResolutionExperts(NewYork,NY)
Scott Brown, AssistantGeneralCounsel–PatentLitigation Bristol-MyersSquibb(Princeton,NJ)
Paul W. Browning Ph.D. Partner,Finnegan,Henderson,Farabow, Garrett&Dunner,LLP(Washington,DC)
Michael F. Buchanan Partner,PattersonBelknapWebb&TylerLLP(NewYork,NY)
Kathleen B. Carr PartnerandCo-ChairofitsIntellectualPropertyLitigationGroup,EdwardsWildmanPalmerLLP(Boston,MA)
Honorable Ruben Castillo ChiefJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourt NorthernDistrictofIllinois(Chicago,IL)
Greg Chopskie SeniorCounsel,GileadSciences(FosterCity,CA)
W. Blake Coblentz Member,CozenO’Connor(Washington,DC)
David G. Conlin Partner,EdwardsWildmanPalmerLLP(Boston,MA)
Bradley W. Crawford Shareholder,PolsinelliPC(Chicago,IL)
Meenakshi Datta, Partner,SidleyAustinLLP(Chicago,IL)
John L. Dauer, Jr., ChiefPatentCounsel,SunPharma/CaracoPharmaceuticalLaboratories,Ltd.(Cranbury,NJ)
Tracey B. Davies, Partner Gibson,Dunn&CrutcherLLP(Dallas,TX)
Bo Davis, Founder,TheDavisFirm(Longview,TX)
Honorable Leonard Davis ChiefJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourt EasternDistrictofTexas(Tyler,TX)
Anthony E. Dowell Attorney,TaftStettinius&HollisterLLP(Chicago,IL)
Kelly J. Eberspecher Shareholder,BrinksGilson&Lione(Chicago,IL)
Jeremy J. Edwards, Partner KnobbeMartensOlson&BearLLP(Washington,DC)
Brian Farnan, Partner,FarnanLLP(Wilmington,DE)
Lisa M. Ferri, Partner,MayerBrownLLP(NewYork,NY)
Thomas J. Filarski Partner,Steptoe&JohnsonLLP(Chicago,IL)
David P. Frazier Ph.D. Partner,Finnegan,Henderson,Farabow, Garrett&Dunner,LLP(Washington,DC)
Michael J. Freno, Partner SeedIntellectualPropertyLawGroupPLLC(Seattle,WA)
Ralph J. Gabric, Shareholder&Chair,LitigationGroup BrinksGilson&Lione(Chicago,IL)
Keith J. Grady PracticeGroupChair,PolsinelliPC(St.Louis,MO)
Pablo D. Hendler Partner,Ropes&GrayLLP(NewYork,NY)
Gary E. Hood, Shareholder,PolsinelliPC(Chicago,IL)
Joseph A. Hynds, Partner Rothwell,Figg,Ernst&Manbeck,P.C.(Washington,DC)
Beth D. Jacob, Partner Kelley,Drye&Warren(NewYork,NY)
Lisa A. Jakob, LegalDirector,IPLitigation Merck&Company(Rahway,NJ)
Mark T. Jansen Partner,Crowell&MoringLLP(SanFrancisco,CA)
George W. Johnston, Counsel,GibbonsP.C.(Newark,NJ) (Former Vice President & Chief Patent Counsel, Hoffmann-La Roche)
Kurt Karst Director,Hyman,PhelpsandMcNamara(Washington,DC)
Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen, Partner KnobbeMartensOlson&BearLLP(Irvine,CA)
Christopher J. Kelley Partner,MayerBrownLLP(PaloAlto,CA)
Sandra Lee, Partner,BakerBotts(NewYork,NY)
Steven Lieberman, Partner Rothwell,Figg,Ernst&Manbeck,P.C.(Washington,DC)
Steven A. Maddox, Partner Knobbe,Martens,Olson&Bear,LLP(Washington,DC)
David A. Manspeizer, Partner WilmerCutlerPickeringHaleandDorrLLP(NewYork,NY)
Donald R. McPhail Member,CozenO’Connor(Washington,DC)
Markus H. Meier AssistantDirector,HealthCareDivision,BureauofCompetition,FederalTradeCommission(Washington,DC)
Donna M. Meuth, AssociateGeneralCounsel IntellectualProperty,EisaiInc.(Andover,MA)
Don J. Mizerk, Partner,HuschBlackwellLLP(Chicago,IL)
Steven Moore Partner,Kelley,Drye&Warren(Stamford,CT)
Honorable Brian P. Murphy (invited) Administrative Patent Judge PatentTrialandAppealBoard–USPTO(Alexandria,VA)
Jeffrey N. Myers, Ph.D. VicePresident&AssistantGeneralCounsel PfizerInc(NewYork,NY)
Glenn S. Newman, CPA/ABV/CFF, MBA Partner,ForensicLitigation&ValuationServices ParenteBeardLLC(Philadelphia,PA)
Christopher R. Noyes, Partner WilmerCutlerPickeringHaleandDorrLLP(NewYork,NY)
Joseph M. O’Malley, Jr. PartnerandGlobalCo-Chair,IntellectualPropertyPractice PaulHastingsLLP(NewYork,NY)
Sailesh K. Patel, Partner,SchiffHardinLLP(Chicago,IL)
Martin B. Pavane Member,CozenO’Connor(NewYork,NY)
Honorable Roy Payne, U.S.M.J. UnitedStatesDistrictCourt EasternDistrictofTexas(Marshall,TX)
Lisa Barons Pensabene, Partner Fitzpatrick,Cella,Harper&Scinto(NewYork,NY)
Paul A. Ragusa, Partner,BakerBottsL.L.P.(NewYork,NY)
Irena Royzman, Partner PattersonBelknapWebb&TylerLLP(NewYork,NY)
Maureen L. Rurka Partner,WinstonStrawnLLP(Chicago,IL)
Richard T. Ruzich Partner,TaftStettinius&HollisterLLP(Chicago,IL)
Charles Ryan SeniorVicePresident,ChiefIntellectualPropertyCounsel ForestLaboratories(NewYork,NY)
Peter O. Safir, Partner Covington&BurlingLLP(Washington,DC)
Carmen M. Shepard Sr.VicePresident,GlobalPolicyandRegulatoryCounsel Mylan(Washington,DC)
David H. Silverstein, M.S., J.D. LegalDirector,IntellectualProperty ParPharmaceuticalCompanies,Inc.(WoodcliffLake,NJ)
Michael A. Sitzman Partner,Gibson,Dunn&CrutcherLLP(SanFrancisco,CA)
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet ChiefJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourt DistrictofDelaware(Wilmington,DE)
Meg Snowden VP,IntellectualProperty,ImpaxLaboratories(Hayward,CA)
James K. Stronski Partner,Crowell&MoringLLP(NewYork,NY)
Honorable Mary Pat Thynge ChiefMagistrateJudge UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,DistrictofDelaware (Wilmington,DE)
Shashank Upadhye, Partner,SeyfarthShawLLP (Chicago,IL)(Former Vice President – Global Intellectual Property, Apotex, Inc.)
Mark E. Waddell, Partner,Loeb&LoebLLP(NewYork,NY)
Peter Waibel, Head,USPatentLitigation NovartisPharmaceuticalsCorporation(EastHanover,NJ)
Bruce M. Wexler Partner,PaulHastingsLLP(NewYork,NY)
George Yu Counsel,SchiffHardinLLP(SanFrancisco,CA)
AdvisOrY BOArd ANd FACULTY L isT
ACI’s Hatch-Waxman Series Advisory Board:
Distinguished Faculty:
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC 3.
Dear Colleague:
Intheeightyearssince its inception,AmericanConferenceInstitute’s(ACI’s)ParagraphIVDisputes conference has become the pharmaceutical industry’s leading forum on Hatch-Waxmanlitigation.Eachspring, the“who’swho”ofHatch-Waxmanlitigatorsandindustrydecisionmakers,aswellasmembersofthejudiciaryandkeygovernmentrepresentativesgatherinNewYorkCityatthisconferencetoassesstheimplicationsandimprimatursofcourtcases,legislation, and industry behaviors which affect the patent endgame and the pursuit of related profits.This “must-attend” event serves the legal and business needs of both branded andgenericdrugmakersbyprovidinginvaluable“takeaways”forlegalstrategiesandcost-analysisforeveryfacetofthiscomplexlitigationfrompre-suitconsiderationstocasefilingsthroughfinaladjudication.
Inthis30thanniversaryyearoftheHatch-WaxmanAct,thetimeforthisconferencehasneverbeen more apropos. In the course of the next eighteen months, the industry will scale the next escarpments of the proverbial patent cliff which will bring an additional 90 billion dollars in patentlosseswhenblockbusterdrugssuchasNexium,Lunesta,Abilify,CrestorandRestasisallgooffpatent.ThiswillresultinincreasedANDAlitigationbetweenbrandsandgenerics,aswellasincreasedchallengesamonggenericsvyingtobethefirsttoobtainthehighlycovetedprizeof180-dayexclusivity.However,therewillalsobenewchallengestoface.BrandsandgenericsmustassessoftheimpactandutilizationofPTOproceedingswhichhaveprovidedalternativeandparallelforumstotheFederalCourts.Then,thereistheuncertaintyofthefalloutfromtheSupremeCourt’sdecisioninActavis, which may add to the already astronomical cost of these litigations as settlements may be both legally and economically infeasible.
Inresponse to thesechallenges,ACI ispleasedtopresent thisyear’sParagraphIVDisputesconference.We welcome you to join our exceptional faculty and your peers as we explore
notonlythelatestlegalnuancesaffectingtheessentialsofHatch-Waxmanlitigation,but also new dilemmas affecting patent sustainability and vulnerability, the impact of IPRandPGR,theGoodlatteBill’sproposedstatutorydefinitionofdouble-patentingtype obviousness, and the probable outcome of Lighting Ballast on claim construction controversies.Thisyear’seventwillfeatureadiscussiononlocalpatentruleswithbothlocalcounselandleadingMagistrates.Also,backbypopulardemandaretheJudges’RoundtableandFTCkeynotespeakersessions.Finally,inresponse,toyourrequests,weareofferingadaylongworkinggrouponpatentsettlementswhichshallnotonlyaddress predictions for how the courts may interpret Actavis, but also provide practical advice on how to structure and draft a settlement agreement with which the parties canliveandthatthecourtsandFTCwillbless.
Clearly,thereisnotamomenttoloseinthisruthlessendgameofno-holdsbarlitigation. Do not be left behind. Register today by calling 1-888-224-2480, faxing your registration form to 1-877-927-1563orvisitinguson-lineat www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC.
WelookforwardtoseeingyouinNewYorkthisApril.
Verytrulyyours,
Lisa J. Piccolo, Esq.SeniorIndustryManager,LifeSciencesandHealthCareAmerican Conference Institute
Network With the “Who’s Who” of Hatch-Waxman Litigators and stakeholders.
Prepare for the Next Wave of ANdA Litigation and Patent Challenges at the Courts and PTO.
Attend the industry’s Premier Paragraph iv disputes Conference.
Media Partners:
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC4.
Monday, April 28, 2014Main Conference – day 1
7:00 Registration and Continental Breakfast
Continental Breakfast Sponsored by:
8:15 Co-Chairs’ Opening Remarks On the 30th Anniversary of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act: Understanding Hatch-Waxman’s Transformative Impact on the Pharmaceutical Industry
Co-Chairs
Guy Donatiello VicePresident,IntellectualPropertyEndoPharmaceuticals(Malvern,PA)
Timothy X. Witkowski, M.S., J.D.Executive Director & Executive Counsel Intellectual PropertyBoehringerIngelheim(Ridgefield,CT)
With Commentary from:
Bob Billings SpecialAdvisorytothePresidentandCEOGenericPharmaceuticalAssociation(Washington,DC)
Brand Name Industry Representative, TBA
September 2014 will mark the 30 year passage of theDrug Price Competition and Patent Term RestorationAct, i.e., theHatch-WaxmanAct.This lawestablishedabalance of power between the brand name and generic pharmaceutical sectors by setting IP timelines and procedures which changed the dynamics of both patent litigationandprofits.Section505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV),i.e., theParagraphIVprovisionisthecornerstoneoftheAct’slitigation schematic – as well as the cornerstone of thisconference.
Pleasejoinourco-chairsandrepresentativesforboththebrand name and generic sectors as they will explore this transformative law and other related matters. Points of discussion will include:
• TheevolutionandchangingdynamicsofbothindustrysectorsinviewofHatch-Waxman
• Theinterplayofnewandproposedlegislation andtheHatch-Waxmanschematic- TheAmericaInventsAct- H.R.3309,TheGoodlatte“InnovationAct”,
i.e.,PatentReformII anti-trollprovisionsandpossibleimpact
onHatch-Waxmansuits- H.R.3091,TheMODDERNCuresActof2013
9:00 Assessing Pharmaceutical Patent Sustainability and Vulnerability: Strategies and Considerations for Brand Names and Generics in Anticipating, Identifying and Determining Which Patents Will Be Ripe for Challenges of Invalidity and Non-Infringement
Stephen R. AutenPartner,ChairofPharmaceutical&LifeSciencesLitigationTaftStettinius&HollisterLLP(Chicago,IL)(Former Vice President, IP, Sandoz, Inc.)
Joseph M. O’Malley, Jr.PartnerandGlobalCo-Chair Intellectual Property PracticePaulHastingsLLP(NewYork,NY)
Irena RoyzmanPartnerPattersonBelknapWebb&TylerLLP(NewYork,NY)
Charles RyanSeniorVicePresident,ChiefIntellectualPropertyCounselForestLaboratories(NewYork,NY)
• RevisitingtheANDAapplicant’sassertionunderParagraphIV,i.e.,“suchpatentisinvalidorwillnot be infringed by… the new drug for which the applicationissubmitted”fromtheperspectiveofbothbrand name and generic manufacturers- reviewingthepresumptionofvalidity Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.(Fed.Cir.2012) reaffirmation of Microsoft v. i4i
(131S.Ct.2238(2011))
- overcomingthepresumptionby“clearandconvincing”evidencetothecontrary
- questionsoflawvs.questionsoffact- understandingcircumstancesinwhichtheburden
may shift from patent holder to alleged infringer• Applyingthepresumptionofvalidityto101subject
matterquestions- CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice,717F.3d1269
(Fed.Cir.2013),cert. granted Dec.6,2013- impacton101validitychallengestoAPIs- potentialuptickin101utilitychallenges
• Analyzingthequestionofwhobearstheburdenofproofinalicensee’schallengetopharmaceuticalpatent validity- Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation,
(SupremeCourtdocketnumber12-1128) MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
549U.S.118(2007)• Newquestionsofinfringement
- Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,No.13-1335 (Fed.Cir.Sept.26,2013) understanding when a promise not to infringe
is an act of infringement scopeofinfringementvis-à-vis271(e)(2)(a)
PATeNTS RIPe FOR PARAGRAPH IV CHALLeNGe
Brand Side Considerations:
• Evaluatingthestrengthofthepatentsinyourcurrentportfolio - blockbustersvs.smallerproducts determining vulnerabilities IP and economics
- smallmoleculesvs.smallproteins- smallproteinspost-BPCIA
• Non-OrangeBookpatents
Generic Considerations:
• ChoosingwhichOrangeBookpatentstochallenge• Understandingtheroleofnon-OrangeBookpatents
inyourPIVANDAstrategies- innovator/non-innovator- API
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC 5.
STRATeGIeS FOR BOTH SIDeS TO AVOID LITIGATION
• Licensingandauthorizedgenericsagreements- newconsiderationsinlightofamendments
toHartScottRodinoandEffexor amicus brief• Claimingthelabel• Useofcitizens’petitions• OTCswitching
10:00 Morning Coffee Break
Morning Coffee Break Sponsored by:
10:15 Use of IPR and Other PTO Proceedings in A Paragraph IV Challenge: Strategies For Brand Names and Generics in Navigating PTO Proceedings in ANDA Litigation
Lisa M. FerriPartnerMayerBrownLLP(NewYork,NY)
Thomas J. FilarskiPartnerSteptoe&JohnsonLLP(Chicago,IL)
Joseph A. HyndsPartnerRothwell,Figg,Ernst&Manbeck,P.C.(Washington,DC)
Honorable Brian P. Murphy (invited)Administrative Patent JudgePatentTrialandAppealBoard–USPTO(Alexandria,VA)
Christopher R. NoyesPartnerWilmerCutlerPickeringHaleandDorrLLP(NewYork,NY)
Moderator:
Kelly J. EberspecherShareholderBrinksGilson&Lione(Chicago,IL)
NewandamendedPTOproceedingsinitiatedundertheAIA are now in full effect and have garnered a great deal ofattention in theHatch-Waxmanspace in lightof therecent decisions and petitions.This session will provideinsightsonhowtheseproceduresmayalterParagraphIVlitigation strategies by providing a means for alternate redress or incorporation of parallel proceedings into District Court actions. Points of discussion will include:
Actual and Anticipated Uses of Inter Partes Review in a Paragraph IV Scenario
• UnderstandingwhenitisstrategicallyprudenttofileanIPR
• SurveyofrecentIPRfilingsanddispositions- Garmin v. Cuozzo Speed Tech,IPR2012-00001
(PTAB2013):firstIPRdecision what can pharmaceutical companies learn from
this decision?- exploringhowrecentwritofmandamusfilings
are being used as a means to bypass the statutory bartoappealsofPTO’sIPRdenials In re MCM Portfolios LLC(Fed.Cir.2013)
• ExaminingtheApotex and Ranbaxy petitions, subsequentsettlementsandtheirsignificance- howmightthesefilingschangethedynamics
ofParagraphIVlitigation?• UnderstandingwhythePTABmayexerciseits
discretion to hear the Teva(Moxifloxin)petitiondespite settlement of that matter
• WillDistrictCourtParagraphIVcasesbestayed inlightofIPRfilings?
• HowarebrandsrethinkingParagraphIVlitigationstrategies in light of this new proceeding and its use by generics?
• AnalyzingconcernsthatIPRandotherproceedingsmaybeusedtogeta“secondbiteattheapple”- Fresenius USA v. Baxter Int’l. (Fed.Cir.2013)
• ExploringusesofIPRforsecond,thirdandothersubsequentANDAfliers- forfeituretriggers- exploringtacticsbyothergenericstoavoidthis
scenario• Query:ifanOrangeBook-listedpatentisfound
invalidinanIPRproceeding–doesitneedtobedelisted?
• Questionofvaluation–whichpatentsonbrandname products are worth challenging? - changingdynamics
Re-evaluating Orange Book Listed Patents and Orange Book Patent Challenges in View of New Legal and Regulatory Developments:
• Compoundpatentsvs.methodsvs.polymorphs- utilizationofusecodesintheaftermathofCaraco- smallproteinspost-BPCIA
• PTAandPTEconsiderations- possibleimpactofExelixis v. Kappos (E.D.Va2013)
• Analyzingnewcontroversiesinbrandnameexclusivities that may affect your due diligence analysis
PRePARING FOR LITIGATION
Brand Side Considerations:
• Developingdiscoverycheck-lists- implementationofdocumentretentionpolicy- whenisalitigationholdputonalldocuments
which may be discoverable• e-Discovery
- possiblee-discoveryrestraintsinvariousjurisdictions
- “callback”ruleforinadvertentdisclosure
Generic Considerations:
• Procuringlegalopinionsoninvalidityandnon-infringement- assessingwhenopinionsareneeded- opinionofin-housev.outsidecounsel- questionsofprivilege Rule26(b)(4)
• FilingtheANDA- fulfillingrequirementsforFDAapproval: pharmaceuticallyequivalent bioequivalent identifying triggers which may necessitate new
bioequivalencestudies
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC6.
GeNeRIC SIDe
Procedural requirements
• PerfectingtheParagraphIVCertification- contents- delivery/service- avoiding“prematurenotice” “latenotice”
• PerfectingtheParagraphIVNoticeLetter• MakingnecessaryamendmentstotheANDA
Substantive requirements
• IdentifyingtheproposedproductcoveredbytheANDA- findingthepatentofthecorrespondingbranded
productwhichisthesubjectoftheParagraphIVletter
• LegalandfactualbasisoftheCertification• Examiningthedetailedstatementandquestions
ofconfidentiality• Exploringtheuseofopinionlettersinrelation
totheNoticeLetter- aretheystillneededinviewofPatentReform?- detailsandotherrequirements- sanctions
BRANDeD SIDe
The response
• Makingproductiveuseofthe45dayperiod• Informationgatheringtechniquesstrategies
- confidentialityagreementsanddocumentrequests obtaining the ANDA terms scope of information that can reasonably expected negotiations
• Extendingthe45dayperiod- 21CFR314.95(f )
• Whenshouldapatentownerfilesuit?- otheroptionstoexplore
• StrategiestoconsiderwithmultipleANDAfilers
Questions for both sides to consider
• Optionstoexploreifsuitisnotcommencedin45days- pros,consandconsequencesof: forfeiture of 30 month stay suing for damages declaratoryjudgmentactions no contest letter
12:15 Networking Luncheon
Networking Luncheon Sponsored by:
1:30 Of Prior Art and Double Patenting: exploring the Dichotomy Between the Federal Circuit and PTO on Obvious Findings and the Potential Impact of the Goodlatte Bill on Double-Patenting Type Obviousness
Jeremy J. EdwardsPartnerKnobbeMartensOlson&BearLLP(Washington,DC)
Lisa A. JakobLegalDirector,IPLitigationMerck&Company(Rahway,NJ)
Steven J. Moore PartnerKelley,Drye&Warren(Stamford,CT)
Bruce M. Wexler PartnerPaulHastingsLLP(NewYork,NY)
Moderator:
Mark T. JansenPartnerCrowell&MoringLLP(SanFrancisco,CA)
Prior Art
• ExaminingthecontrastbetweentheFederalCourtsandPTOonpriorartobviousnessfindings
• AnalyzingFederalCircuit’sreversalsofPTOobviousdeterminations
Other PTO Proceedings to Watch
• SpecificconcernsforjoinderrelativetoDistrictCourtandPTOProceduresundertheAIA
• Possiblescenariosinwhichthefollowingprocedureswould run parallel to district court proceedings- thirdpartyre-issuancesubmissions- supplementalexamination- post-grantreview
• ExaminingcircumstancesinwhichredressisonlysoughtbeforethePTO
11:15 The Gauntlet Rethrown: The Paragraph IV Certification and Notice Letter
For the Brand Name Side
George W. JohnstonCounselGibbonsP.C.(Newark,NJ)(Former Vice President & Chief Patent Counsel, Hoffmann-La Roche)
Peter WaibelHead,USPatentLitigationNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation(EastHanover,NJ)
For the Generic Side
Michael J. FrenoPartnerSeedIntellectualPropertyLawGroupPLLC(Seattle,WA)
David H. Silverstein, M.S., J.D.LegalDirector,IntellectualPropertyPar Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (WoodcliffLake,NJ)
Moderators:
Gary E. HoodShareholderPolsinelliPC(Chicago,IL)
Sandra Lee PartnerBakerBotts(NewYork,NY)
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC 7.
- Rambus Inc. v. Rea (Fed.Cir.2013)- Leo Pharmaceutical Products v. Rea
(August12,2013)(inter partes reexamination) exploring these decisions and the Federal
Circuit’semphasistoalljudiciaryinthefederalcourtsandPTABontheimportanceofobjectiveevidence in an obviousness determination
• AssessingtheimpactoftheAIA’spriorartprovisionsinParagraphIVrelatedobviouschallenges- examiningsecondaryconsiderationsbefore
thePTOundercurrentprocedures undernewIPRandPGRProcedures
• ExploringhowPTOproceduresmaybeusedtobypassfindingsofnon-obviousnessinthefederalcourts- howthedifferentburdensofproofinobviousness
challengesbeforethefederalcourtsandPTOmayimpact litigation strategies questionsofcollateralestoppel questionsoffederalcourtauthority
vs. administrative authority possibleSupremeCourtreview impactontacticsoffirstandsecondfilers
inParagraphIVdisputes• Teva v. Sandoz (Fed.Cir.2013)
- methodsofmeasureandobviousness• Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed.Cir2013)
- combiningobviousnessandinherency• Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva Pharms.,
No.10-805-CJB(D.Del.)- structuralobviousness- findingsofinvalidityaftertrial
• Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (Fed.Cir.2013)- combinationproducts
• Decipheringnewjurisprudencerelativetoobviousness determinations in primary compound andcompositionclaimsvis-à-visaParagraphIVchallenge- impactonmethodsandcompositions- impactonsecondarypatents
Obvious-Type Double Patenting
• UnderstandinghowtheGoodlatteBill,i.e., Innovation Actmaybothcodifyanddrasticallyalterthejudicialdoctrineofobvious-typedoublepatenting
• DissectingthecontroversyoverSection9(d)§106 of the proposed Innovation Act, i.e., prior art in cases of double patenting- potentialcodificationofobvious-typedouble
patentinginto§103• ExploringthepotentialexpansionofIPRtoinclude
doublepatenting-typeobviousnessasacauseofaction- consequencesofthisexpansion
2:30 Afternoon Refreshment Break
2:45 Let the Games Begin: Advanced Strategies for Drafting and Perfecting Pleadings and effectively Using Dispositive Motions in Paragraph IV Disputes
For the Brand Name Side
Scott BrownAssistantGeneralCounsel–PatentLitigationBristol-MyersSquibb(Princeton,NJ)
Michael F. BuchananPartnerPattersonBelknapWebb&TylerLLP(NewYork,NY)
For the Generic Side
John L. Dauer, Jr. Chief Patent CounselSunPharma/ CaracoPharmaceuticalLaboratories,Ltd.(Cranbury, NJ)
Don J. MizerkPartnerHuschBlackwellLLP(Chicago,IL)
Moderators:
Benjamin A. Katzenellenbogen PartnerKnobbeMartensOlson&BearLLP(Irvine,CA)
Paul A. Ragusa PartnerBakerBottsL.L.P.(NewYork,NY)
Initial considerations
• Whereshouldsuitbefiled?- attemptingtoinfluencewhereandwhenthesuit
will occur- evaluatingtransfermotionsandwritsofmandamus
relativetovenue/jurisdiction- examiningjoinderprovisionsandHatch-Waxman
exceptions under AIA relative to venue• Assessingsubjectmatterjurisdiction
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., No.12-3289(D.N.J.2013)
• Questionsofstanding- considerationsformultinationalsandsubsidiaries- weighingprobabilityformotionstodismiss
• Handicappingofjudgesandjurisdiction- localpatentrules
• Questionofjurytrial:exploringcircumstances thatmayputyouinfrontofajury
• ExaminingparallelproceedingsbeforethePTO inviewofPatentReform
Crafting the initial pleadings
• Thecomplaint- challengingtheParagraphIVcertification:alleging
the patent is valid and infringed what claims are made in the ANDA?
- avoidingRule11sanctions- assessingwhetherattorney’sfeescanbeproperly
sought?- considerationswithmultipleANDAfliers whendoesitmakesensetoonlysuethefirstfiler
orafewasopposedtoallANDAfilers? whataretheconsequencesofnotsuingall
ANDAfilers?• Theanswerandcounterclaims
- de-listingimproperlylistedpatents- antitrustandunfaircompetitionclaims- assertionsofinequitableconduct- thegenericpointofview: attorneys fees Rule11
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC8.
Factoring – in the 30 month stay
• Commencementofthestatutory30monthstay- understandingthescopeandlimitsofthe30
monthstayundertheMMA• The30-monthstayinthecourseoflitigation
- optionsandstrategiesforthepatentholderifthestay expires during the course of litigation early termination of the stay
Generic Generic Law Suits
• Exploringcircumstancesinwhichthegeneric behaves as an innovator
• Pleadingprotectionofmarketexclusivity
Declaratory Judgment Motions
• WhenisitappropriatetomoveforaDJ• UnderstandingtheMMAdeclaratoryjudgment
provisionsandtheCAFC’sinterpretationoftheseprovisions- twoprongtest
• CircumstanceswhenaDJwillbegranted• ShouldDJbesoughtonallpatents–listed
and not listed?
Summary Judgment Motions
• IdentifyingcircumstancesinaParagraphIVlitigationwhenfilingamotionforsummaryjudgmentmakessense- whenisitadvantageousforthegenericside
to do so? on grounds of invalidity or infringement?
- doesitevermakesenseforthebrand?
3:45 Working With Local Counsel and within Local Rules: Magistrate and Local Counsel Roundtable
Honorable Mary Pat ThyngeChiefMagistrateJudgeUnitedStatesDistrictCourt,DistrictofDelaware(Wilmington,DE)
Honorable Tonianne Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. UnitedStatesDistrictCourtDistrictofNewJersey(Trenton,NJ)
Honorable Roy Payne, U.S.M.J.UnitedStatesDistrictCourtEasternDistrictofTexas(Marshall,TX)
Eric I. AbrahamPartnerHillWallackLLP(Princeton,NJ)
Bo DavisFounderTheDavisFirm(Longview,TX)
Brian FarnanPartnerFarnanLLP(Wilmington,DE)
Moderators:
W. Blake CoblentzMemberCozenO’Connor(Washington,DC)
Ralph J. GabricShareholder&Chair,LitigationGroupBrinksGilson&Lione(Chicago,IL)
ManykeyjurisdictionsinwhichParagraphIVdisputesareheardhavetheirownlocalpatentrules.Somejurisdictionseven go as far as having a subset of local patent rules for Hatch-Waxmanmatters.Thisiswhytheassistanceoflocalcounselisoftencrucialinnavigatingthe“insandouts”oftheserulesandjurisdictions.Thispanelofmagistratesandlocal andnational counselwill explore the requirementsand nuances of these rules as well as the importance of working with local counsel. Points of discussion willinclude:
• Choosingandworkingwithlocalcounsel• Surveyinglocalpatentrulesinkeyjurisdictions
- NewJersey- E.D.Texas- Delaware- NorthernDistrictofIllinois
• Schedulesettingrules• Applicablediscoveryrules• Localpatentrulesanddispositivemotions• LocalpatentrulesandMarkmanhearings• Trialproceduresunderlocalrules
4:45 A View from the Bench
Honorable Ruben CastilloChief Judge UnitedStatesDistrictCourt NorthernDistrictofIllinois(Chicago,IL)
Honorable Leonard DavisChief JudgeUnitedStatesDistrictCourt EasternDistrictofTexas(Tyler,TX)
Honorable Gregory M. SleetChief JudgeUnitedStatesDistrictCourt,DistrictofDelaware(Wilmington,DE)
Honorable Garrett E. Brown, U.S.D.J. (ret.) FormerChiefJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourtDistrictofNewJersey(Trenton,NJ)Neutral,JAMS,TheResolutionExperts(NewYork,NY)
Moderators:
Meredith Martin AddyPartnerSteptoe&JohnsonLLP(Chicago,IL)
Michael A. SitzmanPartnerGibson,Dunn&CrutcherLLP(SanFrancisco,CA)
RenownedjuristswithsomeofthemostactiveParagraphIV litigation dockets in the country will share theirthoughts and insights on the most important issues facing both patent holders and patent challengers. Come preparedwithyourmostpressingquestions.
6:00 Conference Adjourns to Day Two
Cocktail Reception immediately following Judges’ Panel
Cockail Reception Sponsored By:
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC 9.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014Main Conference – day 2
7:30 Co-Chairs’ Opening Remarks and Recap of Day 1
Continental Breakfast Sponsored by:
8:15 Claim Construction and Markman Hearings: Standards, Jurisprudential Splits and Strategies for Paragraph IV Litigation
Keith J. GradyPracticeGroupChairPolsinelliPC(St.Louis,MO)
Pablo D. HendlerPartnerRopes&GrayLLP(NewYork,NY)
Beth D. JacobPartnerKelley,Drye&Warren(NewYork,NY)
Jeffrey N. Myers, Ph.D.VicePresident&AssistantGeneralCounselPfizerInc(NewYork,NY)
Moderator:
Martin B. Pavane MemberCozenO’Connor(NewYork,NY)
Claim construction has been described as the most important event in the course of patent litigation – letalone Paragraph IV litigation. The Supreme Court inMarkman described claim construction as a “mongrelpractice.” This is evident through the considerable splitinFederalCircuitclaimconstructionjurisprudencewhichhas caused considerable uncertainty in the planning of Markman strategies. As the Supreme Court did notgrant certiorari in Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company (Fed. Cir. 2011), any hopes forconsistent guidance in these matters were dashed. All eyes are now on the Federal Circuit’s Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., 500Fed.
App’x951,951-52(Fed.Cir.2013)caseinhopesthatitwillfinallyestablishthestandardofreviewforsuchmatters.
ThispanelwillprovidepracticalstrategiesforformulatingMarkman hearing strategies in view of the still existingintra-circuit split and possible new standard of review.Points of discussion will include:
• Understandinghow Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp.,500Fed.App’x951,951-52(Fed.Cir.2013)maymendtheintracircuitsplitinclaimconstructionjurisprudence- whattheadoptionofadeferentialstandardofreview
maymeanforMarkmanstrategiesgoingforward• HowthesplitintheFederalCircuitonclaim
constructionhasimpactedParagraphIVchallengesandrelatedMarkmanhearings- morenarrowreadingofclaimsvs.broaderreading findingsoffactvs.questionsoflaw
- Cybor and Phillips- RetractableTechnologies
• Revisiting112writtendescriptionandenablementdistinctionrequirementsrelativetoclarityofclaims- reviewingspecificationrequirements understandability inventorship
• Strategiesforworkingaroundtheseinconsistencies atParagraphIVMarkmanhearings
9:15 FTC Keynote: Reverse Payment Settlements and Other Antitrust Concerns Impacting Paragraph IV Litigation in the Wake of Actavis
Markus H. MeierAssistantDirector,HealthCareDivisionBureau of CompetitionFederalTradeCommission(Washington,DC)
On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued itsdecision in the Actavis case and finally addressed thematterofreversepaymentsettlementsinHatch-Waxmancases. The Court’s 5-3 decision clearly establishes theantitrust “rule of reason” as the standard for evaluatingreversepaymentsettlementcases.ThesignificanceoftheSupreme Court’s decision, however, will only becomeclear as the lower courts grapple with its application to challenged reverse payment settlements.
As per the MMA, the FTC is required to continue toreview Hatch-Waxman settlements, and it has publiclyannounced that it will continue challenging reverse payment settlement agreements, possibly including settlementagreementsfiledpriortotheActavis decision. Private plaintiffs certainly have stepped up their challenges,andtherearecurrentlyfifteenreversepaymentcases in litigation. Additionally, the FTC recently hasquestionedthelegalityunderActavisofaHatch-Waxmansettlementbasedonthebrand’sagreementnottolaunchanauthorizedgeneric.Itisnowanyone’sguessastohowfartheFTCandprivateplaintiffswillgo.
Inthissession,MarkusMeierwilladdressthesematters,inadditiontootheranticompetitiveconcernsintheHatch-Waxmanspace.
10:00 Morning Coffee Break
Morning Coffee Break Sponsored by:
10:15 Perils of the Safe Harbor: Understanding How the Resetting of the Boundaries of 271 (e)(1) In the Aftermath of Classen and Momenta is Impacting Paragraph IV Litigation Strategies
Kathleen B. CarrPartnerandCo-ChairofitsIntellectualPropertyLitigationGroupEdwardsWildmanPalmerLLP(Boston,MA)
Donna M. MeuthAssociateGeneralCounselIntellectual PropertyEisaiInc.(Andover,MA)
Sailesh K. PatelPartnerSchiffHardinLLP(Chicago,IL)
Maureen L. RurkaPartnerWinstonStrawnLLP(Chicago,IL)
Moderator:
Tracey B. DaviesPartner Gibson,Dunn&CrutcherLLP(Dallas,TX)
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC10.
Moderator:
Mark E. WaddellPartnerLoeb&LoebLLP(NewYork,NY)
• UnderstandingthesignificanceoftheSupreme Court granting cert. in Limelight v. Akamai, S.Ct.No.12-786- examiningtheSolicitorGeneral’srecommendation
thattheCourt“holdthatapartycannotbeliableforinducementunder35U.S.C.271(b)ifnopartyhas directly infringed the patent
- revisitingtheFederalCircuit’senbancrulingon inducement of infringement and divided infringement in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.(Fed.Cir.2012) Global Tech v. SEB,563U.S.______
(May31,2011), mens rearequirements willful blindness vs. deliberate indifference indirect vs. direct infringement
• Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No.2012-1042(Fed.Cir.2013)- questionofreasonablebeliefofinvalidityatthe
timeoftheinducingactandconsequences• Exploringtherelationshipbetweeninducement
actions and divided and contributory infringement and how they apply to methods of treatment claims in pharmaceutical patents- applicabilitytomethodsoftreatmentclaimslisted
intheOrangeBook• ExamininghownewproposedFDARulemakingon
GenericLabelingmayimpactcarveoutsandskinnylabeling relative to method of treatment claims
12:15 Networking Luncheon
Networking Luncheon Sponsored by:
1:30 Assessing GDUFA Implementation and Additional Regulatory Developments at FDA Which Impact Paragraph IV Litigation
Bradley W. CrawfordShareholderPolsinelliPC(Chicago,IL)
Kurt KarstDirectorHyman,PhelpsandMcNamara(Washington,DC)
Peter O. SafirPartnerCovington&BurlingLLP(Washington,DC)
Carmen M. ShepardSr.VicePresidentGlobalPolicyandRegulatoryCounselMylan(Washington,DC)
• EvaluatingthesuccessofFDA’simplementationoftheGenericDrugUserFeeAmendmentsof2012(“GDUFA”)- GDUFAsteeringcommittee–purposeandintent- re-visitingFDA’sANDAbackloginlightGDUFA
implementation possible end of multiple review cycles
- addressingconcernsoverhowacontinuingbacklogmay impact not only generic approvals, but the 30 monthstayallowedunderHatch-Waxman
- exploringpossiblerepercussionsforfirstfilerstatus• ExploringproposedlegislationtoremedyGDUFA
hardship for small generic manufacturers- H.R.3631,theSmallManufacturerProtectionAct
of2013• AnticipatingGDUFArepercussionsbasedonAgency
goalsthatmayimpactANDAfliersbeyonduserfeecosts - forfeitures- inspectionsandcGMPviolations
• UnderstandinghowFDAregulatoryredressunderFDASIAmayimpactthefutureofParagraphIVlitigation
• Citizenspetitionsrevisited- examiningtheuptickincitizen’spetitionsfilings
inHatch-Waxmanmatters- whenshouldtheybefiled- avoidingaccusationsthecitizenpetitionisbeing
filedasadelayingtactic- FDAresponsetime/505(q)- CitizensPetitionsrelativetoREMSandgenericdrugs
• LawsuitsagainstFDA• WhenshouldyouconsidersuingtheFDArelative
toaHatch-Waxmandetermination?
• UnderstandingwhytheSupremeCourt’sdenialofcert. in Classen v. Biogen(Fed.Cir.2011)isnotanaffirmationofClassen or Momenta v. Amphastar’s (Fed.Cir.2012)safeharborholdings- dismissalwithoutprejudiceaspremature- reviewoftheSolicitorGeneral’sfindingsand
significanceforfurtherSupremeCourtreview• DecipheringhowtheSupremeCourt’spresentdenial
of cert. and the present state of the law concerning safeharborexceptionswillimpactANDAfilings- whenandtowhatactivitiesdoesthesafeharbor
exception apply? pre-marketvs.post-marketactivity
- infringingvs.non-infringingactivity “developmentandsubmissioninformation
underofaFederallaw”vs.“informationthatmay be routinely reported to the FDA, long after marketingapprovalhasbeenobtained”
- positionofbrandsvs.thatofgenericsrelativetoParagraphIVchallenges
- howmaythisjurisprudenceimpacttherelationshipbetween brands and generics as established by the Hatch-WaxmanAct?
• DevisingstrategiesforHatch-Waxmanlitigationrelativetotheboundariesof271(e)(1)inviewofthelaw’spresentstate- brandnameandgenericperspectives
11:15 In the Limelight: Strategies and Theories of Inducement, Contributory and Divided Infringement in Paragraph IV Litigation Concerning Method of Treatment Patents
Nicolas BarzoukasPartnerBakerBottsL.L.P.(Houston,TX)
Steven LiebermanPartnerRothwell,Figg,Ernst&Manbeck,P.C.(Washington,DC)
David A. ManspeizerPartnerWilmerCutlerPickeringHaleandDorrLLP(NewYork,NY)
Shashank UpadhyePartnerSeyfarthShawLLP(Chicago,IL)(Former Vice President – Global Intellectual Property, Apotex, Inc.)
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC 11.
2:30 Looking Beyond 180 Days: New exclusivity Challenges for Brand Names and Generics and Related Implications for Paragraph IV Challenges
David P. Frazier Ph.D.PartnerFinnegan,Henderson,Farabow, Garrett&Dunner,LLP(Washington,DC)
Lisa Barons Pensabene PartnerFitzpatrick,Cella,Harper&Scinto(NewYork,NY)
Richard T. RuzichPartnerTaftStettinius&HollisterLLP(Chicago,IL)
Meg SnowdenVP,IntellectualPropertyImpaxLaboratories(Hayward,CA)
Brand Name Exclusivity Challenges
• AnalyzingnewNCEexclusivityconcerns- Eisai(Belviq)andUCB(Vimpat)citizenspetitions can the NCE exclusivity start date begin for a
controlled substance prior to DEA scheduling?• Exploringnew3-yearnewclinicalinvestigation
exclusivity matters- Covis(Lanoxin)- AstraZeneca(Seroquel)
• StatusoflawsuitsagainstFDAinregulatoryexclusivity denials- CenterforDrugEvaluationandResearch’s
(“CDER’s)ExclusivityBoard reviewofNCEexclusivity,3-yearnewclinical
trial exclusivity, and exclusivity for biological products
Exclusivity for Combination Products
• StatusandreviewofCombinationDrugDevelopmentIncentiveActof2013(H.R.2985)
• ExploringexclusivitiesforcombinationproductscomprisedoftwonewOrangeBooklisteddrugs- reviewofnecessarycriteriaforeachofthe
componentdrugstoreceive5yearNCEexclusivity
Gilead(Stribild)Ferring(Prepopik)andBayer(Natazia)CitizensPetitions
• WhataretheavailableexclusivitiesforacombinationproductcomprisedoftwooldOrangeBooklisteddrugs?
• Whatexclusivityprotectionsareafforded to a combination product comprised of a new andoldOrangeBooklisteddrug?
• Whatofavailableexclusivitiesforcombinationproducts comprised of :- anOrangeBooklisteddruganddevice?- anOrangeBooklisteddrugandbiologicalproduct?
180-Day Exclusivity Challenges for Generic Small Molecules
• DecipheringtheFDA’sstanceonpreandpost–MMA180-dayexclusivity
• Interpretingthe“earlierof”,“laterof”languageinmakingaforfeituredetermination
• Evaluatingthestrengthof“thefailuretomarket”provision
• Forfeitureprovisions:circumstancesunderwhichexclusivityisforfeitedunderFDCAct§505(j)(5)(D)(i)- Caraco:questionof180-dayexclusivityforfeiture
for an ANDA product that receives tentative approvalonthe30-monthANDAsubmissionanniversary date
• AssessingtheuseofIPRasaforfeituretriggeringevent• Evaluatingtheimpactof“delisting”onforfeiture• Forfeiturerelativetopatentexpiration• Evaluatingwhenthe180-dayexclusivityperiod
canberelinquishedortransferred,andexploring theconsequences
• Whencanabrand“park”ageneric’sexclusivity?• Defining“sharedexclusivity”• Howhaveauthorizedgenericschangedtheplaying
fieldrelativeto180-dayexclusivity?• Exploringregulatorybarstoexclusivity
- GMPviolations- SECactions
• Revisitingtherelationshipbetweenexclusivity,forfeiture and the 30 month stay- circumstancesunderwhichasecondstaymay
be granted- impactongrantofexclusivity
3:15 Afternoon Refreshment Break
3:30 A Pros and Cons Analysis of Launching At Risk and Survey of New Developments in Seeking Injunctive Relief and Damages
Thomas H. BeckPartnerSidleyAustinLLP(NewYork,NY)
Gregory K. Bell GroupVicePresident GlobalPracticeLeader–LifeSciencesCharlesRiverAssociates(Boston,MA)
Greg Chopskie SeniorCounselGileadSciences(FosterCity,CA)
Glenn S. Newman, CPA/ABV/CFF, MBAPartner,ForensicLitigation&ValuationServicesParenteBeardLLC(Philadelphia,PA)
James K. Stronski PartnerCrowell&MoringLLP(NewYork,NY)
George Yu CounselSchiffHardinLLP(SanFrancisco,CA)
Moderator:
Paul W. Browning Ph.D.Partner Finnegan,Henderson,Farabow, Garrett&Dunner,LLP(Washington,DC)
OnJune12,2013, theparties intheProtonix litigationreached an agreement in the amount of $2.15 Billionfor lost profit damages. This number is astronomical.However, as the damages portion did not go to trial, itis anyone’s guess as to how great an amount may haveultimately been awarded in court. Brand names and generics are still in thedarkas towhatmay transpire ifa trial for an at risk launch of the generic version of abrandedproductwereevertoreachfinaladjudicationatthe damages phase.
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC12.
Thispanelwillexplore lessons learnedfromProtonix interms of new considerations for damages estimation and award in an at-risk launch and the continuing debateover divergent standards for injunctive relief. Points ofdiscussion will include:
The At-Risk Launch
• Launchingatriskduringlitigationortheappealperiod- takingacloserlookatProtonix- benefitsandrisksanalysis- assessingwhetherthemagnitudeoftheProtonix
litigationwilldeterfuturelaunchesatrisk- evaluatingtheoveralldeclineinatrisklaunches
over the last few years linkagetoFTC“pay–for-delay”activity impact of Actavisonsuchfilings
Injunctions
• ExamininghowDistrictCourtdeterminationsregardingpreliminaryinjunctionsarebeingmadein view of the inconsistencies between the Federal CircuitandtheSupremeCourtrelativetothegrantingofapreliminaryinjunction- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7 (2008) eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
547U.S.388(2006)- intra-CircuitsplitattheFederalCircuit- takingtheFederalCircuittotaskfornotfollowing
theSupremeCourt’sstandardforpreliminaryinjunctions
- Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC,CaseNo.10-1382 (Fed.Cir.,Sept.29,2011)
• ReviewofrecentHatch-Waxmanmattersconcerningpreliminaryinjunctions- AstraZeneca LP v. Breath Ltd.(Fed.Cir.2013)
• Practicalstrategiesforbrandnamesandgenericsindealing with this discord before the District Courts and Federal Circuit
• Seekingapreliminaryinjunctionintheeventthat the stay ends in the course of the litigation - postingofbondbythebrandedside
• Strategiesforopposinginjunctiverelief
• Exploringthepossibilityofastipulatedinjunction- whyastipulatedinjunctionmaybeofbenefit
to both sides
Damages Analysis
• WhathastheProtonixsettlementtaughtusaboutdamages assessment?
• Thequantificationofdamages- brand–namevs.genericpointofview- smallv.largegenericcompanyconcerns
• Lostprofits:- assessmentofprofitasatruemeasureofdamages isthedrugprofitable? aquestionofsales
- whenisittheonlythingthatyoucanseek?- circumstancesunderwhichlostprofitscanbe
denied Sanofi v. Glenmark (D.N.J.2012) questionofauthorizedgeneric
• Reasonableroyalties:- basisforroyalty- lookingatmarketshare- thepointwhereinfringementbegan
• Mitigatingfactorsimpactingdamageaward
4:45 ethical Considerations for Paragraph IV Matters Before the PTO and District Courts: Inequitable Conduct and More
Bradford J. BadkePartnerRopes&GrayLLP(NewYork,NY)
David G. ConlinPartnerEdwardsWildmanPalmerLLP(Boston,MA)
Anthony E. DowellAttorneyTaftStettinius&HollisterLLP(Chicago,IL)
• AnalysisofthePTO’snewRulesofProfessionalConduct - relationshiptoABAmodelrulesandsignificance harmonizationwithmostethicsrulesadoptedby
most state bars
understanding how the adoption of these rules willimpactParagraphIVlitigation
• ExaminingtheFederalCircuit’stighteningoftheinequitableconductstandardinTherasense - intenttodeceive single most reasonable inference
- materiality ‘butfor’test
• Analyzingthedownwardtrendininequitableconductallegations since Therasense
• ExploringthePTO’sadoptionoftheTherasense standardinitsproceedingswithrespecttoinequitableconductfindings- inequitableconductandPatentReform supplemental proceedings under the AIA:
anopportunitytocureinequitableconduct?• Apotex, Inc., et al., v. UCB, Inc., et al.,
(S.D.Florida2013)- obtainingacompetitor’sproductbydeception
• Sony Computer v. 1st Media LLC (on petition for writ ofcertiorari2013)- possiblereturntopre-Therasense standard
• Rule11obligationstobringanethicssuitin aHatch-Waxmancase- exploringthedebateofwhetherstateorfederallaw
applies to IP malpractice actions
5:45 Conference ends
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC 13.
Workshop Objectives:
• Understandtheapplicationofantitrustlaw’s“RuleofReason”topharmaceuticalpatentsettlements
• DraftandstructureanagreementthatwillpassFTCreview• IdentifyandavoidredflagsthatcouldtriggerFTC
scrutiny• Incorporateelementsthatemphasizetheprocompetitive
nature of the agreement • Assesstheroleofcommitmentsastoauthorizedgenerics
andtheFTC’sviewonthistopic• Understandthesignificanceofotherbusiness
opportunitiesinmakingtheseagreementsviable• Provideaworkingknowledgeofconceptssuchas
valuation,pricing,royaltiesandlostprofitsastheyapplyto these agreements
• Developtimelinesforbusinessandlegalmilestonesrelative to the terms of the settlement
• DevisestrategiestoemploypendingcompletionoftheFTC’sreview
TheMMArequirespharmaceutical companies tonotify theFTC and the DOJ of settlements of pharmaceutical patentdisputes. This mandate has caused both brand names andgenerics alike great apprehension as it replaces patent-baseduncertainty with antitrust risk. Although the FTC haschallenged only two settlements out of the hundreds filedin recent years, its public statements condemning “reversepayments” have created uncertainty and frustration amongboth the branded and generic pharmaceutical industries.
AlleyeswereontheSupremeCourtlastspringwhenitruledinFTC v. Actavis (formerly Watson) in hopes that there would be some guidance as to what was fair or foul in these settlements.
However, the Court’s decision has still not broughtcertainty to the antitrust analysis of these settlements. While, theCourtestablished that theRuleofReason isthe controlling antitrust principle in these cases, it did not explainfullyhowtoapplyit.Moreover,theCommission’sinvocation of Actavis in pursuing agreements relating to itemssuchasauthorizedgenericsonlycontinuestocausethe industry anxiety.
Thishands-on,interactiveworkshopwillexaminehow,inthispost-Actavis environment,parties toaParagraphIVdispute can resolve their differences, reach an agreement thattheybothcanlivewith,andminimizethechancesofcostlyanddistractinggovernmentscrutiny.Theworkshopleaderswillwalk you through the antitrust implicationsof Actavis and provide practical pointers and strategies for the drafting and structuring of successful and sound settlement agreements within the parameters of the workshop’sobjectives.Pointsofdiscussionwillinclude:
• Overviewoftheantitrustlawandcompetitiveprinciples governing pharmaceutical patent settlements
• AnalyzingtheSupremeCourt’srulinginActavis• Reviewofthe“RuleofReason”anditsapplication
to pharmaceutical patent settlements• AnticipatingtheFTC’snextareaoffocusinwake
of the Actavis ruling • Creativesettlementstrategieswithinthescope
of what is permissible • Assessingrolesofin-houseandoutsidecounsel,
andthein-housebusinessteam,indeveloping and executing settlement strategies
• Analysisofantitrustimplicationsofpossibleagreement terms and conditions
• Riskallocationbetweentheparties- supplyagreementsandstrategiesforsuccessful
structuring and permissible terms - avoidanceoftheappearanceofhiddenpayments- carefuluseofdocumentationtopromote
transparency, clarify intent and avoid any allegation ofnon-disclosure
• Developinglegalandbusinesstimelinestodetermineoptimal settlement terms for both sides - keypointsforbusinessandlegaltimelines- assessingtheproduct’splaceinthemarketplacein
comparison to other therapeutic classes of drug - valuationofproductovercourseofpatentlifecycle- criteriafordeterminingvalue- stockvalueovercourseoflifecycle- returnoninvestmentovercourseoflifecycle
• Potentialroyaltystreamsfromlicensing• Assessinglikelihoodsandvaluesoflitigation
outcomes • The30monthstay• Reviewofpricingtermsrelativetosettlement
agreements - transferpricing- bestprice- MedicarePartDpricing- WAC- priceadjustments
• Effexoramicusbriefandauthorizedgenerics- examiningtheapplicabilityoftheScottHart
Rodinopremergernotificationrulesamendmentsconcerning exclusive patent licenses for pharmaceutical products to the settlement of cases broughtunderParagraphIV
Post Conference Workshop on Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements | Wednesday, April 30, 2014 • 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM
(Registration with Continental Breakfast opens at 8:15 AM. Luncheon will be served from 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM.)
The Master Class on Settling Paragraph IV Disputes: Drafting and Negotiating Strategies for Brand-Names and Generics – A Hands-On, Practical Approach in the Aftermath of Actavis
Gregory K. BellGroupVicePresident GlobalPracticeLeader–LifeSciences CharlesRiverAssociates(Boston,MA)
Meenakshi DattaPartnerSidleyAustinLLP(Chicago,IL)
Donald R. McPhailMemberCozenO’Connor(Washington,DC)
Glenn S. Newman, CPA/ABV/CFF, MBA Partner,ForensicLitigation&ValuationServicesParenteBeardLLC(Philadelphia,PA)
Moderators:
Christopher J. KelleyPartnerMayerBrownLLP(PaloAlto,CA)
Steven A. MaddoxPartnerKnobbe,Martens,Olson&Bear,LLP(Washington,DC)
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC14.
Is your organization recruiting specialists with expertise in this area?
Many of our speakers and delegates use our conferences to recruit for new, expert talent to fill open positions at their firms.
Because ACI provides many niche conferences annually, our events are a great way to discover a rich pool of highly qualified talent.
Announcing the ACI Job Board
Visit www.americanconference.com/blog and navigate to the ACI Expert Jobs link.
It’s quick, easy and free for you, your in-house recruiters, or anyone in your firm to post current open positions and take advantage of our exclusive community of experts.
The newly posted jobs will appear on the relevant sections of www.americanconference.com and our partner sites, ensuring that your free job listing is visible to a large number of targeted individuals.
Withmorethan500conferencesintheUnitedStates,Europe,AsiaPacific,andLatinAmerica,AmericanConferenceInstitute(ACI)providesadiverseportfoliodevotedtoprovidingbusinessintelligencetoseniordecisionmakerswhoneedtorespondtochallengesspanningvariousindustriesintheUSandaroundtheworld.
As amemberofour sponsorship faculty, yourorganizationwill bedeemedas apartner.Wewillwork closelywithyourorganization to create theperfect business development solution catered exclusively to theneeds of yourpractice group,business line or corporation.
For more information about this program or our global portfolio of events, please contact:
Esther FleischhackerSeniorBusinessDevelopmentExecutive,SpecialProjects,AmericanConferenceInstitute
212-352-3220 x5232 | [email protected]
Global Sponsorship Opportunities
Eachyearmorethan21,000in-housecounsel,attorneysinprivatepracticeandotherseniorexecutivesparticipateinACIevents–andthenumberskeepgrowing.
Guaranteed Value Based on Comprehensive Research
ACI’s highly trained team of attorney-producers are dedicated, full-time, to developing the content and scope of ourconferencesbasedoncomprehensiveresearchwithyouandothersfacingsimilarchallenges.Wespeakyourlanguage,ensuringthat our programs provide strategic, cutting edge guidance on practical issues.
UnparalleledLearningandNetworking
ACIunderstandsthatgainingperspectivesfrom–andbuildingrelationshipswith–yourfellowdelegatesduringthebreakscanbejustasvaluableasthestructuredconferencesessions.ACIstrivestomakeboththeformalandinformalaspectsofyourconference as productive as possible.
American Conference Institute:
The leading networking and information resource for counsel and senior executives.
Accreditationwillbesoughtinthosejurisdictionsrequestedbytheregistrantswhichhavecontinuingeducationrequirements.ThiscourseisidentifiedasnontransitionalforthepurposesofCLEaccreditation.
ACI certifies that the activityhas been approved forCLE credit by theNewYorkStateContinuingLegalEducation Board in the amount of 15.0 hours (1.0 Ethics). An additional 7.0 credit hours will apply toworkshopparticipation.
ACIcertifiesthatthisactivityhasbeenapprovedforCLEcreditbytheStateBarofCaliforniaintheamountof12.75hours(1.0Ethics).Anadditional6.0credithourswillapplytoworkshopparticipation.
Youarerequiredtobringyourstatebarnumbertocompletetheappropriatestateformsduringtheconference.CLEcreditsareprocessedin4-8weeksafteraconferenceisheld.
ACIhasadedicatedteamwhichprocessesrequestsforstateapproval.PleasenotethateventaccreditationvariesbystateandACIwillmakeeveryefforttoprocessyourrequest.
QuestionsaboutCLEcreditsforyourstate? VisitouronlineCLEHelpCenteratwww.americanconference.com/CLE
Continuing Legal Education Credits
Earn CLE
ETHICS Credits
Patent attorneys and litigators (in-house & law firm) who represent:
• Brand name pharmaceutical companies
• Generic pharmaceutical companies
• Biopharmaceutical companies
WHO YOU WILL MEET
Register now: 888-224-2480 • Fax: 877-927-1563 • www.AmericanConference.com/PIVDisputesNYC 15.
THANK yOU TO OUR SUPPORTING SPONSORS
Baker Botts is an international law firmwithaglobalnetworkofoffices.OurLife
Sciencelawyersarewell-versedinallfacetsofthelawimpactingthe industry, and our matters have included representation of proprietary pharmaceutical companies over a range of Hatch-Waxman issues, including ANDA litigation, patent portfolioreview, product design and clearance, Orange Book inquiries,505(b)(2) applications, paragraph IV certifications and noticeletters,exclusivityinquiries,pre-litigationassessments,settlementsand trial. www.BakerBotts.com
Brinks Gilson & Lionehas160attorneys,scientificadvisors and patent agents who specialize inintellectual property, making it one of the largestintellectualproperty lawfirms in theU.S.ClientsaroundtheworlduseBrinkstohelpthemidentify,
protect, manage and enforce their intellectual property. Brinkslawyers provide expertise in all aspects of patent, trademark,unfair competition, trade secret and copyright law.TheBrinksteam includes lawyers with advanced degrees in all fields oftechnologyandscience.BasedinChicago,BrinkshasofficesinWashington, D.C., Research Triangle Park, N.C., Ann Arbor,Detroit,SaltLakeCityandIndianapolis.Moreinformationisatwww.brinksgilson.com.
Cozen O’Connor is an international law firm with more than 575 lawyers in 23offices.Our intellectualproperty teamisa
national leader inHatch-Waxman litigationwithan impressivetrack record. In addition to top-tier patent litigation, we alsocounsel clients on a full range of regulatory issues and advocate on theirbehalfbeforekeyregulatoryauthorities.Ourattorneysholdadvanced degrees in the natural sciences and nearly all members have experience as research scientists in industry or academia for small molecules, (www.cozen.com/practices/intellectual-property/biologics-biosimilars) biosimilars and hybrid products, such as smaller polysaccharides and peptides.
Edwards Wildman attorneys have representedseveraloftheworld’slargestbrand pharmaceutical companies in
Hatch-Waxman Paragraph IV patent litigation against manymajor generic drug companies. These cases have protectedbillions of dollars worth of small molecule pharmaceutical sales for our clients. Our pharmaceutical patent litigation experienceischaracterizedbyeffectiveleadtrialcounselwell-versed in Hatch-Waxman issues. Teams are based in NewYork and Boston and have enforced patents covering NCEs,polymorphs, solid and liquid dosage forms, salts, treatmentmethods,stabilizers,andsustainedreleaseformulations.Wearealso seasoned and successful appellate advocates at the Court ofAppeals for theFederalCircuit.More information canbefound at ip.edwardswildman.com.
From offices in the United States,Europe, and Asia, Finnegan’s375lawyers
workwithclientstoprotect,advocate,andleveragetheirmostimportant intellectual property assets. www.finnegan.com
Attorneys in the Hatch-Waxmanpractice at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP represent pharmaceutical makers in
expanding their portfolios, exploring licensing opportunities and successfully resolving related contentious matters. Our attorneys have a deep understanding of the intellectual property, technical, regulatory and antitrust complexities of ANDA and ParagraphIVfilingsanddisputes.
ForSponsorshipOpportunitiesforthiseventandtheACIIPPortfolio,pleasecontact:
Esther Fleischhacker at 212 352 3220 x 5232 or at [email protected]
Patterson Belknap is a 200-lawyer firm based in NewYork City. More than half of our attorneys are litigators,many with a focus on patent disputes. We litigate “bet-the-company” matters on behalf of major corporations inindustries including pharmaceuticals, manufacturing and software.Manyofourattorneyshavescientificandtechnicalbackgrounds and varied industry experience, includingin such diverse fields as chemistry, biochemistry, biology,biotechnology, statistics, mathematics, and chemical, nuclear and electrical engineering.
Polsinelli Shughart PCisafull-servicelaw firm with extensive experienceassisting generic drug companies in overcoming the challenges of bringing
their products to market. Our cross-disciplinary Hatch-Waxmanteamassistsitsclientsinnavigatingthecomplexitiesof the approval process — from analyzing and evaluatingOrangeandnon-OrangeBookpatents,preparingandfilingANDAor505(b)(2)applications,tolitigatingthroughtrial,appeal, and/or settlement Paragraph IV cases on behalf ofbothfirstandsubsequentfilersinsingleandmulti-defendantactions. Over the past two decades, Polsinelli lawyers have been involved inallaspectsof someof theworld’s leadingdrugs,fromaripiprazoletoZantac®.Weprideourselvesonachieving favorable outcomes always keeping in mind ourclient’sbottomline.
RE
gis
tR
at
ion
fo
Rm
Regi
stra
tion
fee
The
fee
incl
udes
the
conf
eren
ce‚ a
ll pr
ogra
m m
ater
ials
‚ con
tinen
tal b
reak
fast
s‚
lunc
hes
and
refre
shm
ents
.
Paym
ent P
olic
yPa
ymen
t mus
t be
rece
ived
in fu
ll by
the
conf
eren
ce d
ate.
All
disc
ount
s w
ill b
e ap
plie
d to
the
Conf
eren
ce O
nly
fee
(exc
ludi
ng a
dd-
ons)
, can
not b
e co
mbi
ned
with
any
oth
er o
ffer,
and
mus
t be
paid
in fu
ll at
tim
e of
ord
er. G
roup
dis
coun
ts
avai
labl
e to
indi
vidu
als
empl
oyed
by
the
sam
e or
gani
zatio
n.
Canc
ella
tion
and
Refu
nd P
olic
yYo
u m
ust
notif
y us
by
emai
l at
leas
t 48
hrs
in a
dvan
ce if
you
wis
h to
sen
d a
subs
titut
e pa
rtici
pant
. Del
egat
es m
ay n
ot “
shar
e” a
pas
s be
twee
n m
ultip
le
atte
ndee
s w
ithou
t pr
ior
auth
oriz
atio
n. I
f yo
u ar
e un
able
to
find
a su
bstit
ute,
pl
ease
not
ify A
mer
ican
Con
fere
nce
Inst
itute
(AC
I) in
writ
ing
up t
o 10
day
s pr
ior t
o th
e co
nfer
ence
dat
e an
d a
cred
it vo
uche
r val
id fo
r 1 y
ear w
ill b
e is
sued
to
you
for t
he fu
ll am
ount
pai
d, re
deem
able
aga
inst
any
oth
er A
CI c
onfe
renc
e. If
yo
u pr
efer
, you
may
requ
est a
refu
nd o
f fee
s pa
id le
ss a
25%
ser
vice
cha
rge.
No
cred
its o
r ref
unds
will
be
give
n fo
r can
cella
tions
rece
ived
afte
r 10
days
prio
r to
the
conf
eren
ce d
ate.
ACI
rese
rves
the
right
to c
ance
l any
con
fere
nce
it de
ems
nece
ssar
y an
d w
ill n
ot b
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r ai
rfare
‚ hot
el o
r ot
her
cost
s in
curr
ed
by r
egis
trant
s. N
o lia
bilit
y is
ass
umed
by
ACI
for
chan
ges
in p
rogr
am d
ate‚
co
nten
t‚ sp
eake
rs‚ o
r ven
ue.
Hote
l inf
orm
atio
nAm
eric
an C
onfe
renc
e In
stitu
te i
s pl
ease
d to
offe
r ou
r de
lega
tes
a lim
ited
num
ber
of h
otel
roo
ms
at a
pre
fere
ntia
l ra
te.
Plea
se c
onta
ct t
he h
otel
di
rect
ly a
nd m
entio
n th
e “A
CI P
arag
raph
IV”
conf
eren
ce t
o re
ceiv
e th
is r
ate.
Venu
e:
Conr
ad N
ew Y
ork
Addr
ess:
10
2 No
rth E
nd A
venu
e; N
ew Y
ork,
NY
1028
2Re
serv
atio
ns:
(212
) 945
-01
00
inco
rrec
t mai
ling
info
rmat
ion
If yo
u w
ould
lik
e us
to
chan
ge a
ny o
f yo
ur d
etai
ls p
leas
e fa
x th
e la
bel
on
this
bro
chur
e to
our
Dat
abas
e Ad
min
istra
tor
at 1
-87
7-92
7-15
63,
or e
mai
l da
ta@
Amer
ican
Conf
eren
ce.c
om.
ATTE
NTIO
N M
AILR
OOM
: If u
ndel
iver
able
to a
ddre
ssee
, ple
ase
forw
ard
to:
Pate
nt C
ouns
el, i
P Co
unse
l, Pa
tent
Liti
gato
r
Conf
EREn
CE C
odE:
896
L14-
nYC
o Y
Es! P
leas
e re
gist
er th
e fo
llow
ing
dele
gate
for P
arag
raph
iV d
ispu
tes
PRIO
RITY
SER
VICE
COD
E
896L
14.W
EB
✃
PaYm
Ent
Plea
se c
harg
e m
y
o V
ISA
o M
aste
rCar
d o
AM
EX o
Dis
cove
r Car
d o
Ple
ase
invo
ice
me
NuM
bEr
EXP.
DAtE
CArD
holD
Er
o I
have
enc
lose
d m
y ch
eck
for $
____
___
mad
e pa
yabl
e to
am
eric
an C
onfe
renc
e in
stitu
te (t
.I.N.
—98
-011
6207
)
o AC
h Pa
ymen
t ($u
SD)
Plea
se q
uote
the
nam
e of
the
atte
ndee
(s) a
nd
the
even
t cod
e 89
6l14
as
a re
fere
nce.
For u
S re
gist
rant
s:ba
nk N
ame:
hSb
C uS
AAd
dres
s: 8
00 6
th A
venu
e, N
ew Y
ork,
NY
1000
1Ac
coun
t Nam
e: A
mer
ican
Con
fere
nce
Inst
itute
uPIC
rou
ting
and
tran
sit N
umbe
r: 02
1-05
205-
3uP
IC A
ccou
nt N
umbe
r: 74
9524
05No
n-uS
resi
dent
s pl
ease
con
tact
Cus
tom
er S
ervic
e
for W
ire P
aym
ent i
nfor
mat
ion
Cont
aCt
dEta
iLs
NAM
E
PoSI
tIoN
APPr
oVIN
G M
ANAG
Er
PoSI
tIoN
orGA
NIZA
tIoN
ADDr
ESS
CItY
St
AtE
ZIP
CoDE
tElE
PhoN
E
FAX
EMAI
l
tYPE
oF
buSI
NESS
o I
wou
ld li
ke to
rece
ive C
lE a
ccre
dita
tion
for t
he fo
llow
ing
stat
es: _
____
____
____
____
__. S
ee C
lE d
etai
ls in
side
.
*ELI
TEPA
SS is
reco
mm
ende
d fo
r max
imum
lear
ning
and
net
wor
king
val
ue.
FEE
PER
DELE
GATE
Regi
ster
& P
ay b
y M
ar 1
4, 2
014
Regi
ster
& P
ay b
y Ap
r 11,
201
4Re
gist
er a
fter A
pr 1
1, 2
014
o E
LITE
PASS
*: Co
nfer
ence
& W
orks
hop
$289
0$2
990
$311
0
o C
onfe
renc
e On
ly$1
995
$209
5$2
295
o W
orks
hop
Only
$139
5$1
395
$139
5
o P
leas
e re
serv
e __
_ ad
ditio
nal c
opie
s of
the
Conf
eren
ce M
ater
ials
at $
499
per c
opy.
SPEC
IAL
DISC
OUNT
We
offe
r spe
cial
pric
ing
for g
roup
s an
d go
vern
men
t em
ploy
ees.
Pl
ease
em
ail o
r cal
l for
det
ails
. Pr
omot
iona
l dis
coun
ts m
ay n
ot b
e co
mbi
ned.
ACI
offe
rs fi
nanc
ial
scho
lars
hips
for g
over
nmen
t em
ploy
ees,
judg
es, l
aw s
tude
nts,
no
n-pr
ofit
entit
ies
and
othe
rs. F
or m
ore
info
rmat
ion,
pl
ease
em
ail o
r cal
l cus
tom
er s
ervi
ce.
If yo
u m
isse
d th
e ch
ance
to a
ttend
an
ACI e
vent
, you
can
stil
l be
nefit
from
the
conf
eren
ce p
rese
ntat
ion
mat
eria
ls. T
o or
der t
he
Conf
eren
ce M
ater
ials
, ple
ase
call
+1-
888-
224-
2480
or v
isit:
ht
tp://
ww
w.a
mer
ican
conf
eren
ce.c
om/c
onfe
renc
e_pa
pers
MIS
SED
A CO
NfER
ENCE
–
ORDE
R Th
E CO
NfER
ENCE
MAT
ERIA
LS N
Ow!
5 E
asy
Way
s to
Reg
iste
r
MAI
L Am
eric
an C
onfe
renc
e In
stitu
te
45 W
est 2
5th
Stre
et, 1
1th
Floo
r
New
Yor
k, N
Y 10
010
PHON
E 88
8-22
4-24
80
FAX
877-
927-
1563
ONLI
NE
w
ww
.Am
eric
anCo
nfer
ence
.com
/ PI
VDis
pute
sNYC
EMAI
L
Cust
omer
Serv
ice@
Amer
ican
Conf
eren
ce.c
om8* Ê' :
Par
agra
ph
IV
Dis
put
es
Amer
ican C
onfer
ence
Insti
tute’
s 8th
Ann
ual
April
28-
29, 2
014
| T
he C
onra
d –
New
York
| N
ew Yo
rk C
ity
HAT
CH-W
AXM
AN
ACI’s
se
ri
es
Indu
stry I
nsigh
ts fro
m:
Boe
hrin
ger
Inge
lhei
m
Bri
stol
-Mye
rsS
quib
b
Eis
ai I
nc.
End
o Ph
arm
aceu
tica
ls
Fore
stL
abor
ator
ies
Gile
adS
cien
ces
Impa
xLa
bora
tori
es
Mer
ck&
Com
pany
Myl
an
Nov
arti
s Ph
arm
aceu
tica
ls
Cor
pora
tion
Par
Phar
mac
euti
cal
Com
pani
es, I
nc.
Pfize
rIn
c
Sun
Phar
ma
/Car
aco
Phar
mac
euti
cal
Labo
rato
ries
,Ltd
.
April
30,
201
4M
aste
r C
lass
on
Para
grap
h IV
Dis
pute
Se
ttle
men
ts in
the
Aft
erm
ath
of A
ctav
is