Biotech Startup Patent Infringement.
1. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (2016-2020)
Issue: Amgen sued Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals over patent infringement related to their PCSK9 inhibitors (cholesterol-lowering drugs). The technology was a key innovation for treating high cholesterol using monoclonal antibodies.
Patent Focus: Amgen held patents for the PCSK9 monoclonal antibody therapy, a new class of drugs for lowering LDL cholesterol levels.
Outcome: The case went through various phases, including a jury trial and appeals. In 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Sanofi and Regeneron, overturning the district court’s decision that Amgen's patents were valid. The court concluded that the patents were invalid for lack of enablement, meaning that they failed to sufficiently describe how to make and use the inventions as claimed.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates the risk for biotech startups of patenting broad biotechnology inventions (like antibodies) without sufficient technical details. It also showed how patent litigation can be resource-intensive for startups, even if they hold valuable patents.
2. Eli Lilly v. Hospira (2014-2016)
Issue: Hospira, a biotech startup, was accused of infringing on Eli Lilly’s patent for recombinant human insulin (a biosimilar version). Eli Lilly claimed that Hospira had produced a biosimilar product (a biologic copy of insulin) that was too similar to its patented invention.
Patent Focus: Eli Lilly held patents for the process of producing recombinant insulin through genetically engineered bacteria.
Outcome: The court ruled in favor of Eli Lilly, ordering Hospira to pay damages for infringement. This case was significant in showing how biotech startups working on biosimilars can be exposed to costly litigation by patent holders of original biologics. The ruling reaffirmed the strength of patents on biologic production processes, even when competing companies create biosimilars.
Legal Significance: This case underlined the challenges for biosimilar manufacturers (often biotech startups) in proving non-infringement when working with existing patented processes for biologics. The complexity of biologic drugs (versus small molecule drugs) can make defending patent infringement cases especially difficult.
3. In re Merck Patent Litigation (2007)
Issue: Merck & Co. sued a number of smaller biotech companies for infringing its patents related to HIV/AIDS treatments, particularly involving protease inhibitors used in combination therapies.
Patent Focus: Merck held several patents on a HIV protease inhibitor, a critical component in combination therapies for treating HIV.
Outcome: The court granted summary judgment in favor of Merck, ruling that the smaller companies had infringed on Merck’s patents, and therefore, the court enforced the patent rights.
Legal Significance: This case demonstrated that larger biotech firms with well-established patent portfolios can sue smaller startups for infringement on core therapeutic technologies. It also showed that patent holders may have the upper hand in such cases, particularly if the patents involved are fundamental to a specific class of drugs. It served as a warning to smaller startups that operating in established therapeutic fields with foundational patents could expose them to infringement claims.
*4. Biotech Patent Infringement: MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)
Issue: MedImmune, a biotech startup, filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its monoclonal antibody product did not infringe on Genentech's patents. MedImmune was developing its own version of a cancer therapy and feared that Genentech’s patents might cover their work.
Patent Focus: Genentech held patents on monoclonal antibody therapies used for treating cancer. MedImmune sought to avoid patent infringement by challenging the validity of these patents.
Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of MedImmune, holding that a licensee does not have to breach a contract to challenge the validity of a patent in a declaratory judgment action.
Legal Significance: This case clarified that biotech startups can challenge patents even if they are in an existing licensing agreement, avoiding the need to actually infringe the patent first. The case also set the stage for future declaratory judgment actions where a company can preemptively avoid liability before facing full-scale patent infringement lawsuits.
5. AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp. (2008)
Issue: AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical giant, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apotex, a startup involved in the generic production of biologics. Apotex was accused of infringing AstraZeneca’s patents for esomeprazole (a version of the drug Nexium).
Patent Focus: The patents involved methods for the synthesis of esomeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for treating gastric acid diseases.
Outcome: The U.S. Federal Circuit ruled in favor of AstraZeneca, finding that Apotex’s generic version of the drug infringed AstraZeneca’s patent rights. Apotex was ordered to pay damages, and the court upheld the validity of AstraZeneca’s patent for esomeprazole.
Legal Significance: This case highlighted how generic biotech startups are vulnerable to patent infringement claims from brand-name pharmaceutical companies, especially when they attempt to produce biosimilars or generic biologics. It also illustrated how important it is for biotech startups to navigate patent landscapes and secure freedom to operate before bringing products to market.
6. Illumina, Inc. v. Complete Genomics, Inc. (2013-2016)
Issue: Illumina, a leader in the field of next-generation sequencing (NGS), sued Complete Genomics, a competing biotech startup, for infringing its patents related to DNA sequencing technology.
Patent Focus: Illumina's patents covered methods for high-throughput DNA sequencing, a technology crucial for genomics and personalized medicine.
Outcome: The case was eventually settled, with Complete Genomics agreeing to a licensing deal and Illumina maintaining its dominant position in the market.
Legal Significance: This case illustrated the risk for startups in highly innovative sectors like genomics, where patent portfolios often cover fundamental technologies. It also showed that patent infringement cases in biotech can often lead to settlements or licensing agreements, especially when larger players are involved.
Legal Trends and Takeaways for Biotech Startups
Patent Landscape Analysis: Before entering a new area of biotechnology, it is critical for startups to conduct thorough freedom-to-operate (FTO) analyses to avoid patent infringement. Many startups fail to do this, and later face litigation that drains resources and distracts from their product development.
Strategic Patenting: Biotech startups must file patents early and ensure that their patent claims are robust and detailed enough to withstand challenges. Weak patents are more likely to be invalidated or subject to disputes over non-infringement.
Biosimilar Litigation: Biotech startups working on biosimilars (copies of biologic drugs) face increasing patent challenges from originator companies. Such litigation can be lengthy and costly, and may impact the pricing and market entry of competing biosimilars.
Defending Against Infringement Claims: If a startup is accused of infringing patents, they should consider all options, including negotiating a settlement, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity, or challenging the validity of the patents on the basis of prior art.
Licensing and Patent Pools: In some cases, patent disputes can be avoided by licensing patents or participating in patent pools where multiple companies agree to share intellectual property rights.
RELATED Blog
comments