5.11.14The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit recently issued a major ruling that allows for pharmaceutical companies to sue each other over patent claims, a ruling that could affect the industry as a whole.
As part of the ruling, the court said that pharmaceutical companies could seek a court order to block generic competitors from competing on price, while companies seeking to sue other generic companies over alleged patent violations can use a “principal-injury” approach to recover damages.
But as a general matter, the ruling is a step towards more transparent patent law, which could have wider implications for the industry.
The DC Circuit’s decision has already raised concerns in the US, where the pharmaceutical company Pfizer has a patent against the generic version of OxyContin.
“The DC Court of Appeal’s opinion affirms that patent exhaustion is an option that can be used in patent disputes between generic and branded drugmakers,” Pfizer said in a statement on Thursday.
“[This] is in line with the Supreme Courts decision in the case of Pfizer v.
Merck, which found that the patent exhaustion rule does not provide a way for the patentee to avoid the costs of litigation by using a secondary, punitive remedy that does not address the merits of the patent.
We look forward to reviewing the full opinion.”
The patent case, which involved a US pharma giant called Merck & Co, which had patents for the drug, was settled last year for $2.3bn.
Pfizer, the largest US drugmaker, has been fighting a lawsuit by the generic drugmaker AstraZeneca, which has accused Pfizer of violating a patent for a generic version called Zoloft.
However, the case was dismissed earlier this year.
PFizer, AstraZap, and AstraMed had been suing Pfizer since 2012, over the alleged violation of a patent covering the generic OxyContin drug Oxycodone, which was introduced by Pfizer in 2000.
As part of their lawsuit, the generic companies alleged that Pfizer had violated a patent that covered a generic form of Oxycodones, which were introduced in 2000 by Pfizen.
In its decision, the DC Court said that the court did not need to address whether Pfizer and Astralax are infringing the patent in order to conclude that Pfizenedepro was patent infringed.
It said that it could not find a “rational basis” for Pfizer’s patent claims against AstralMed.
Nevertheless, the patent suit has sparked a number of new patent cases, with Astra Zeneca alleging that Pfizers and Astrava violated patents covering the drug.
While Pfizer says that the decision is not about patent exhaustion, the decision could lead to new legal battles between the generic and brand companies.
On Wednesday, the US Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Astra Zap, Pfizer, and Pfizer for allegedly illegally infringing patents for generic versions of OxyCoke and Opana.
If Pfizer prevails in its patent suit, Astravax could also win in a patent case brought by Astra Med.
Earlier this month, Pfizens sister company Astra Pharma filed a lawsuit against Astravamax, accusing the brand of infringing a patent on the generic Opana drug, which is manufactured by Astravan Pharmaceuticals.
This patent was filed in 2005 by Astronavax, a generic drug company that Pfitzen bought in 2013 for $12bn.