• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees’ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Allergan patent deal totters: no property right due to tribal immunity

6. April 2018

A new turn shows up in the sensational patent agreement between pharmaceutical manufacturer Allergan and the Indian Mohawk tribe, which wants to protect the Allergan patents with its tribal immunity. PTAB now rejected the claim to protection on the basis of the immunity of the Indian tribe.

AllerganThe Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had to re-examine the patent agreement between Allergan and the Mohawk tribe at the end of February. The Irish pharmaceutical company Allergan sold the patents for the drug Restasis to the St. Regis Mohawk tribe in New York State in 2017 to prevent the patents from being invalidated. The tribe in turn leased the patents back to Allergan exclusively and against expensive payment – we reported.

In an Interpartes Review (IPR) procedure between the generics manufacturer Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Allergan, Inc. for several patents on the ophthalmic drug Restasis, PTAB now rejected the asserted immunity claim. The PTAB was essentially based on three arguments:

  • The tribe had no control over Allergan’s rights, “all essential rights” to the patents were held by Allergan. For example, the tribe could not sublicense the patents. The tribe is therefore not a necessary party of intellectual property in the disputed patents.
  • Moreover, there is in principle no legal support for the application of tribal immunity to administrative procedures such as the PTAB.
  • And the parties involved and the characterisation of the agreement between Allergan and the tribe are not decisive for the assessment whether the agreement is a licence agreement or a full assignment. After all, the PTAB has to evaluate the patents itself, and not the patent holders.
An inter partes review (IPR) is a procedure for challenging the validity of a US patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (translated from: Wikipedia). The IPR process was introduced seven years ago to reduce the burden of patent litigation in federal courts, but critics, including pharmaceutical companies, say it is being exploited by so-called patent roles and hedge funds.
The procedure is carried out by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to examine the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only for a reason that could be filed under Sections 102 or 103 and only on the basis of the state of the art, consisting of patents or printed publications.
(translated from: USPTO)

Allergan appeals

Allergan filed an appeal against PTAB’s decision and applied for a stay of intellectual property rights for the disputed patents. The Federal Circuit agreed to this. However, there is now a fixed timetable: The briefing for the appointment is expected to be completed by mid-May 2018. PTAB, in turn, has announced that a final written decision on the patentability of the contested patents will be taken by mid-June 2018. It seems that the loophole in patent law will be closed for the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe.

 

Do you want to secure your patent rights or patent licenses?

Our patent attorneys are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law. Take your chance and agree on a non-binding telephone call. 

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

Reuters News 29th March 2018

picture:

422737 / pixabay.com / CC0 License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences,  Patent Law,  Licenses Tag iconPatent,  Allergan,  IPR,  Mohawk,  PTAB

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Healthcare & Lifesciences

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Own trademark application fails – despite comparable trademarks: Equal treatment? 5. March 2021
  • Intel to pay 2.2 billion in damages – to VLSI / Fortress Investment 5. March 2021
  • BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor? 2. March 2021
  • Suspension of infringement proceedings 1. March 2021

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

5. March 2021
Intel to pay 2.2 billion in damages – to VLSI / Fortress Investment

Intel to pay 2.2 billion in damages – to VLSI / Fortress Investment

2. March 2021
BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor?

BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor?

26. February 2021
Action against a patent already expired

Action against a patent already expired

18. February 2021
EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform

EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform

15. February 2021
Employee’s invention in insolvency

Employee’s invention in insolvency

12. February 2021
Equivalence ruling of BGH: ‘Equivalent means’ in case Crane arm

Equivalence ruling of BGH: ‘Equivalent means’ in case Crane arm

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form