Claire Laporte, "Life Sciences IP"
-
Upload
the-petrie-flom-center-for-health-law-policy-biotechnology-and-bioethics -
Category
Healthcare
-
view
102 -
download
1
Transcript of Claire Laporte, "Life Sciences IP"
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 1
Agenda
A corner of the ACA: the biologics statute From patents to trade secrets
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 2
The IP Corner of the ACA
The ACA touches IP by including Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). BPCIA: a pathway for the approval of biosimilars Like generics for biologics
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 3
Generic Drugs
Identical in “dosage form, safety, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use” Not identical in price! Must be approved by FDA Hatch-Waxman Act provides
pathway for approval … and also a pathway for
patent issues to be resolved.
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 4
Biologics
Injected or infused Complex biomolecules such as antibodies Manufactured in genetically modified living cells High price, high profit
Costly to develop … and until BPCIA,
no pathway for generic-type (biosimilar) entry
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 5
BPCIA Establishes Biosimilars Pathway
Biosimilar applicant must establish that its drug is “biosimilar” to a “reference product” based on analytical, animal, and clinical studies. FDA cannot approve a biosimilar until 12 years after it
licenses the reference product. Biosimilars now approved: Zarxio® (filgrastim), Sandoz’s biosimilar to Amgen’s Neupogen® Inflectra® (infliximab), Celltrion’s biosimilar to Janssen’s
Remicade® Erelzi™ (etanercept), Sandoz’s biosimilar to Amgen’s Enbrel® Amjevita™ (adalimumab), Amgen’s biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira®
Biosimilars are not as cheap as generics compared with the branded drug. Wholesale ACA repeal would eliminate pathway entirely.
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 6
And Now, the IP Dimension …
Statute sets up a “patent dance” to resolve issues about patents protecting the reference product:
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 7
Patent Dance?
Sandoz (and others) assert that patent dance is OPTIONAL. You decide: BPCIA (42 U.S.C. §262(l)(2)(A)): Biosimilar applicant
“shall provide to the reference product sponsor a copy of the application … and such other information that describes the process or processes used to manufacture the biological product.”
But BPCIA (§262(l)(9)(C)): “If a [biosimilar] applicant fails to [initiate the patent dance], the reference product sponsor, … may bring an action … for a declaration of infringement, validity, or enforceability of any patent that claims the biological product or a use of the biological product.”
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 8
Major Pros and Cons of Sitting Out the Dance
Pros
Postpone disclosure of application and manufacturing information More difficult for RPS to
allege infringement of manufacturing process patents Avoid requirement of
detailed, pre-litigation invalidity and non-infringement contentions
Cons
Lose chance to get list of relevant patents and RPS’s pre-litigation infringement and validity contentions Loss of control over timing
of litigation and number of patents RPS will eventually get
access to same information through discovery
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 9
The Courts Decide …
Federal Circuit: “[R]ead in isolation, the ‘shall’ provision … appears to
mean that a [biosimilar] applicant is required [to initiate patent dance] ….” BUT “the ‘shall’ provision … cannot be read in isolation. In
other provisions, the BPCIA explicitly contemplates that a [biosimilar] applicant might fail to [initiate dance] ….”
Supreme Court cert. granted on January 13.
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 10
But Wait, There’s More
Reference product gets 12 years of exclusivity…. BUT: BPCIA (l)(8)(A): “The [biosimilar] applicant shall
provide notice to the reference product sponsor not later than 180 days before the date of the first commercial marketing of the biological product licensed under subsection (k).” Federal Circuit: “We agree with Amgen that … a
[biosimilar] applicant may only give effective notice of commercial marketing after the FDA has licensed its product.” Cert granted on this too. 12 and a
half…
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 11
What Lies Ahead in 2017
Blockbuster decision in Amgen/Sandoz expected before July Questions: Will information exchange requirements and costs of
litigation create a disincentive to filing biosimilars applications? If the Supreme Court validates the alternative pathway
(no patent dance), will applicants dance or not? How will approval of biosimilars affect pricing models?
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 12
Agenda
A corner of the ACA: the biologics statute From patents to trade secrets
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 13
The Old Regime in the Life Sciences: Patents
Product development Long lead times Companies need to attract early investment Patents as proxies for company value
Licensing Non-exclusive licenses for platform technologies Exclusive licenses under Bayh-Dole for product-oriented patents Cross-licensing and royalty stacking
Litigation Patents protect products Every minute of patent term counts Litigation is typically brought by practicing entity
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 14
Trolls Destabilize the Patent System
“Troll” litigation in Eastern District of Texas Total cost of patent litigation
leaps into the high 7 figures Congress and the courts try to
fix the situation
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 15
The Supreme Court and “Patent Eligibility”
Section 101: from backwater to front line “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” Old Supreme Court cases had established non-textual
exceptions: Products of nature Abstract ideas Laws of nature
Among patent lawyers, nobody cared. Patent challengers brought cases based on the old
exceptions … and the Court began knocking off patents
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 16
Ariosa v. Sequenom (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Patent was based on insight that pregnant women’s plasma and serum contained cell-free fetal DNA. Law of nature??? Patent claimed a method of detecting “paternally
inherited nucleic acid of fetal origin” by amplifying the DNA from the serum or plasma sample. Product was MaterniT21 test, an alternative to
amniocentesis and CVS. Held: patent is invalid Cert denied 2016
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 17
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016
Legislation flew through otherwise gridlocked Congress Very similar to Uniform Trade Secrets Act Commerce Clause-based: applies only to trade
secrets “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, in interstate or foreign commerce” Jurisdiction in either federal or state court Diversity no longer needed to bring a trade secret action
in federal court But seizure provisions are effectively federal only
No preemption of state law
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 18
Patents or Trade Secrets?
PATENTS TRADE SECRETS
Require public disclosure Destroyed by public disclosure
Term: 20 years Term: as long as you keep the secret
Can protect reverse-engineerable items
No protection against reverse engineering
Obtained by prosecution; maintained by payments
Can be labor-intensive to maintain; requires reasonable efforts to keep secret
Exclusive: no unlicensed use permitted Non-exclusive: use prohibited only if it results from misappropriation
Must be non-obvious, adequately described, and useful
Must acquire value from not being generally known
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 19
Collaborations and Trade Secrets
Life science collaborations must now: Provide for reasonable measures to safeguard trade
secrets Be clear who “owns” trade secrets developed in the
collaboration A rogue co-owner can destroy the entire value of the trade secret – trade secrets are more vulnerable than patents
Consider including contract provisions to determine how information will be protected: patent or trade secret?
© 2017 Foley Hoag LLP. All Rights Reserved. 20
What Lies Ahead for 2017
Development of a new body of decisional law about trade secrets in federal court Increasing importance of trade secrets in the life
science economy: Manufacturing methods Targets Genotype/phenotype associations
Possible suppression of scientific knowledge to preserve secrecy of trade secrets