• 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

Patent protection for branded drugs: China extended, USA shortened

5. June 2018

There are two current trends in the ongoing conflict between drug manufacturers and generics manufacturers. In China, patent protection for branded drugs is currently being extended, while in the USA it is to be cut back.

Patent protection for branded drugs

branded drugsThe Nikkei Asia Review reports that China will extend patent protection for branded drugs to up to 25 years from May 2018. Beijing has also abolished import duties of up to 6% on 28 categories of medicines, including cancer medicines. This development is new and all the more surprising as many Chinese companies act as manufacturers of generic drugs. At the same time, however, there is a tendency on the part of the Chinese leadership to seriously refute the Western accusation of patent infringement. (Read more at: Info Blog: Trademark and Patent Proceedings in China).

A look at America shows the opposite:

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a company can obtain FDA approval to market a generic drug before a patent for the brand name drug expires. This also includes a competitive component: The first company to submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to the FDA has exclusive rights to market the generic for 180 days.

The generic requester must fulfill the following conditions:

  • certify that the patent in question is invalid or is not infringed by the generic product (“Paragraph IV certification”)
  • and inform the patent holder of the filing of the ANDA.

If the patent holder files an infringement suit against the generic manufacturer within 45 days of the ANDA notification, the FDA approval for marketing the generic will automatically be postponed by 30 months, unless the patent expires before this date or is considered invalid or not infringed. This 30-month postponement is intended to give the patent holder time to assert his patent rights in court before a generic competitor is admitted.

Current promotion of generics in the USA

The office of the US Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in May that the FDA wanted to remove market barriers for generics. Just a few days ago, he specified new FDA guidelines to limit the ability of manufacturers of branded drugs to prevent the timely market entry of generic drugs. In particular, risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programmes should no longer be able to be used for this purpose. However, this seems to have long since become common practice of the FDA. In 2017, the FDA approved a high number of applications for generics: more than 1,000 full or preliminary approvals. This record number of generic approvals has led to a 60 percent increase in Hatch-Waxman lawsuits related to abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA) for generic versions of patented drugs, according to Lex Machina’s recently published ANDA report. According to this report, approximately 10 percent of all patent infringement lawsuits filed in the United States relate to the paragraph IV certifications of ANDA applicants.

This is because the drug manufacturers of branded drugs are defending themselves against the numerous ANDA-conditional approvals for generics, as they carry out cost-intensive, longstanding and risky research work for the development of a drug. This leads to exceptional cases such as Allergan, Inc. vs. Mylan Pharmaceuticals and the controversial IP right due to tribal immunity – we reported.

Typical ANDA cases

Typical ANDA cases relate to the Hatch-Waxman framework, “in which an action for induced injury is filed before the generic has brought its product to market and necessarily before the generic has even attempted to communicate with a direct infringer”. However, there are also cases where the original drug manufacturer submits its case years after the launch of the generic drug (GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 03/28/18; C.A. No. 14-878-LPS-CJB)). In such a case, the pharmaceutical manufacturer must provide sufficient evidence that the generic manufacturer has exploited false incentives for its product. Although a jury court initially saw GlaxoSmithKline as right, the District Court for the District of Delaware overturned the jury’s decision and partially agreed with Teva.

Interesting judgements are expected in current ANDA cases:

  • Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. of Airis Pharma Private Ltd, 17-7912 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc. by Macleods Pharms. Ltd., 17-1469 (D. Del.)
  • Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC by Mylan N.V., 17-9105 (D.N.J.)
  • Boehringer-Ingelheim vs. Teva 2017 (3:17-cv-11510-MAS-LHG)

The starting points of the lawsuits are, on the one hand, the detailed instructions for the use of the original medication. If the generic product label does not contain explicit instructions concerning the scope of the original patent, it is more difficult to demonstrate the inductive effect of the generic product.

In addition, generic manufacturers must provide an argumentation for the benefit of their product when submitting an application to the FDA. They often use data from bioavailability or bioequivalence studies carried out by the original manufacturer – proof that the generic manufacturer had knowledge of all details of the patent on the brand name drug.

License agreements can be the solution

Settlement agreements are also reached time and again. Sales-oriented licensing agreements can help to meet the needs of both branded drugs and generic manufacturers. Incidentally, this is also a way to help patients: because generic drugs are also cheaper than the brand name drug in such cases.

Patent protection of branded drugs – a topic for you too?

Our law firm has many years of expertise in the pharmaceutical sector. Request a non-binding callback today:

 

 

 

Sources:

U.S FDA: Press Release Commissioner Scott Gottlieb

PR Newswire – ANDA Report

USPTO 2007:Linkages Between Generic Approval and the Patent System in the United States

Picture:

geralt / pixabay.com / CC0 License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences,  Patent Law Tag iconChina,  patent protection,  branded drugs,  Abbreviated New Drug Application,  application for generics,  Paragraph IV certification,  FDA,  US,  ANDA,  REMS

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

  • BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor? 2. March 2021
  • Suspension of infringement proceedings 1. March 2021
  • Action against a patent already expired 26. February 2021
  • Design protection in China: Amendment 2021 25. February 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:

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

5. February 2021
Trade secret: what are ‘appropriate’ secrecy measures?

Trade secret: what are ‘appropriate’ secrecy measures?

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