PATENT DECISIONS
A CLASH OF THE COURTS
The US Supreme Court has now heard arguments in the appeal of Teva v Sandoz from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This could fundamentally change how patent decisions are reviewed by the Federal Circuit and the deference given to district court rulings, says Felicia Boyd of Barnes & Thornburg.
I
n October the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the closely watched appeal of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v
Sandoz, Inc from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. T e issue before the Supreme Court could fundamentally change how patent decisions are reviewed by the Federal Circuit and the deference given to district court rulings.
Teva owns a patent covering a drug used to treat multiple sclerosis. T e drug, Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), is reported to bring in $4 billion a year in revenue for Teva. With the last patent set to expire in 2015, several pharmaceutical companies are looking to introduce generic formulations of the drug and cut into this revenue stream, sooner rather than later.
Sandoz and Mylan (collectively Sandoz)
submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Abbreviated New Drug
www.lifesciencesipreview.com
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review
Volume 2, Issue 1
23
ORHAN CAM /
SHUTTERSTOCK.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44