Saturday, 31 May 2008
Atorvastatin + Ramipril (Atocor-R): Dr. Reddy launch new combination in India
Posted by ADKS at 2:28 pm
Drug approval/Launch: Topiramate (Lupin), Bupropion Hydrochloride (Teva), Cetirizine Hydrochloride Syrup (Teva)
Lupin got tentative Approval for Topiramate Tablets
Lupin announced that it has received tentative approval for the Company's ANDA for Topiramate tablets, 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). Lupin's Topiramate tablets are the AB-rated generic equivalent of Ortho-McNeil's TOPAMAX(R) tablets, indicated for the treatment of seizures.
Teva Announces Launch of Generic Wellbutrin XL Tablets, 150 mg
Teva Pharma announced that it has begun commercially shipping Bupropion Hydrochloride Extended-Release Tablets, 150 mg, the generic version of Biovail Corporation's antidepressant Wellbutrin XL(R) Tablets, pursuant to its March 2007 agreement with Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Wellbutrin XL(R) Tablets, 150 mg, marketed by GlaxoSmithKline, had U.S. sales of approximately $930 million for the 12 months ended March 2008, according to IMS data.
Teva Launch Cetirizine Hydrochloride Syrup
Teva Pharmaceuticals announced the introduction and availability of Cetirizine Hydrochloride Syrup. This product is AA rated and bioequivalent to Zyrtec®* Syrup. Cetirizine Hydrochloride Syrup is available in a 5 mg/5 mL strength, in bottle sizes of 120 mL and 473 mL.
Posted by ADKS at 1:44 pm
Friday, 30 May 2008
Levocetrizine (Xyzal): Innovator File second Suit To Thwart Generic challenge
Belgian drugmaker UCB SA and its U.S. partner, Sepracor Inc., have filed their second lawsuit in two months in an effort to stave off a generic challenge to their antihistamine drug Xyzal.
The lawsuit was filed on wednesday on US district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. UCB alleged that Sun pharma infringed the company's patent US5698558 (Expiry: September 24, 2012, which covers method of use of levocetrizine) for levocetirizine hydrochloride 5mg by filing an ANDA with USFDA.Eralier innovator has sued first para IV filer Synthon for infringement of said patent as reported earlier by this blog
Posted by ADKS at 12:53 pm
Clopidogrel: Generic players filed Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) with Besylate salt in Germany
Sanofi-aventis has become aware of the registrations of Clopidogrel besylate in Germany, as reflected in the AMIS-database of the BfArM (The German Federal Drug Regulatory Authority) on May 28, 2008. These registrations refer to a different salt of clopidogrel than the one of Plavix® (clopidogrel bisulfate), and the products are labelled only for a limited number of indications when compared to Plavix®.
IP pharma doc has earlier speculated the same in its earlier post
Posted by ADKS at 12:36 pm
Tibolone (Arrow V/S Akzo): Scottish patent revocation decision
"1. A pharmaceutical composition which contains a pharmaceutically suitable solid carrier and the compound having the structure (7ά, 17ά) - 17 - hydroxy-7-methyl-19-nor-17-pregn-5(10)-en-20-yn-3-one, characterized in that the compound is crystalline pure, which purity is greater than 90%.
2. The pharmaceutical composition of claim 1, characterized in that the crystalline purity is greater than 95%.
3. The pharmaceutical composition according to claim 1, characterized in that the crystalline pure compound has the monoclinic P21 form.
4. The pharmaceutical composition according to claim 1, characterized in that the crystalline pure compound has the triclinic P1 form.
5. A method for the preparation of a crystalline pure compound for use in a pharmaceutical composition accordingly to claim 3, characterized in that the polymorphous compound is crystallized from mixtures of water and acetone or ethanol, or from ethyl acetate, acetonitrile, or acetone-hexane mixtures.
Claims 4 and 6 are not challenged in these proceedings. Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 2 and 3 are claims to a product; claim 5 is a claim to a process (for the preparation of the monoclinic crystalline form).
6. A method for the preparation of a crystalline pure compound for use in a pharmaceutical composition according to claim 4, characterized in that the polymorphous compound is crystallized from an apolar solvent."
During trial only claims 1-3 and 5 were in dispute. Arrow challenges the validity of the patent on grounds both of anticipation and of obviousness. The Lord Ordinary upheld that challenge on the basis of anticipation but rejected it on the ground of obviousness. Akzo has reclaimed against the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor. It contends that, properly construed, the patent was not anticipated by any relevant prior art. Arrow resists that contention and further cross-appeals, contending that the Lord Ordinary erred in holding that the invention was not obvious.
The prior art upon which Arrow primarily, but not exclusively, relies is an article published in May 1984 in the Annual of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. The title of the article is in the following terms:"Conformational analysis of 3-oxo 5(10)-unsaturated steroids. Single-crystal X-ray structure analysis of 17-hydroxy-7ά-methyl-19-nor-17ά-pregn-5(10)-en-20-yn-3-one (Org OD 14)". Its authors were J.-P. Declercq and M. Van Meerssche
The question was whether the Lord Ordinary at the first instance had been correct in determining that the claims were not obvious in light of one particular prior art document disclosing tibolone in a crystalline form. The prior art document did not disclose that tibolone occurred in more than one crystalline form, as the discovery that tibolone was in fact polymorphic was made only later on. The Lord President, in judgment, considered that this did not make the claimed invention obvious:
The circumstance that following the experimental parameters described by Declercq et al. the skilled person would ordinarily obtain crystals, some at least of which were monoclinic, does not entail that 'the invention' would thereby be performed. The invention, properly understood, was constituted by a pharmaceutical composition having a high degree of crystalline purity in the active ingredient. While the skilled person, following Declercq, might be expected to obtain a mixture of crystalline forms (including some monoclinic), from which a particular crystal might by some process under the laboratory microscope have been isolated, Declercq did not teach how to obtain a product of high crystalline purity for pharmaceutical use - even if the skilled person for some reason was alert to the need to isolate a particular form, notwithstanding his ignorance of polymorphism in tibolone.In these circumstances, while Declercq enabled the skilled person to take certain steps, it did not enable him 'to perform the invention
Lord President Opinion : The Lord President considered that the use of tibolone to a high degree of crystalline purity as the active ingredient in a pharmaceutical composition was not obvious. Preliminary to that inventive step was the discovery by Akzo (not itself an invention, according to the Lord President) that tibolone was in fact polymorphous, i.e. with at least two crystalline forms. That discovery led in turn to the practical identification of the product, involving use in a pharmaceutical composition of crystalline pure tibolone having distinct advantages over a general mixture of forms, these advantages being stability and reproducibility. The skilled but unimaginative man would not have taken these steps or any of them.That was effectively the end of the story, as far as the patent was concerned, since Lord Kingarth agreed with the Lord President's conclusions. Lord Clarke, however, did not agree entirely and considered that claims 1-3 were not inventive:
Lord Clarke opinion: On discovery of the polymorphous character of tibolone, the patentee, no doubt, sought to address the consequences of that discovery. In my judgment, however, they did so by virtue of what is addressed in claims 4, 5 and 6. In claims 1-3, however, as they are worded, what was being claimed was the incorporation of monoclinic P21 form tibolone, up to a level of purity greater than 90%, which would include 100%. Claims 1-3 do not address the means (whether robust or otherwise) whereby a purity of more than 90% of monoclinic P2 tibolone is to be produced. They are, as previously noted, product claims, not process claims. They seek a monopoly in the product so described. My acceptance, shared by all members of this court, of Arrow's submission that these claims required to be read as embracing single crystal pharmaceutical compositions has to be kept in mind. The composition, tibolone, had been known since the 1960s. I accept that the skilled man would, at the priority date, have known that it was being developed by a drug company and was of particular interest in relation to the treatment of menopausal complaints. After Declercq, he knew also that the crystalline structure had been discovered as monoclinic form. Prior to the priority date tibolone had been put on the market in pill form. The question then comes to be, whether it would have been an inventive step to do what claims 1-3 embrace. [...] I repeat that the knowledge, or otherwise, of the discovery of the polymorphous character of tibolone seems to me to have bedevilled the discussion of this question and certainly led, in my view, the Lord Ordinary to misdirect himself when dealing with the matter. On this branch of the case, it seems to me that the question is, can it be said to be inventive to place a single crystal of monoclinic form 1 tibolone in a pill, tablet or capsule? Judging matters from the viewpoint of the skilled man who was aware of only Form 1 monoclinic tibolone as at the priority date, I agree with Arrow that, on the evidence, it cannot
Opinion of court
Posted by ADKS at 12:01 pm
Thursday, 29 May 2008
Atorvastatin (Lipitor): Australian court upheld Pfizer's basic patent
Posted by ADKS at 11:52 am
News analysis:India set for starting Pharm.D courses
Posted by ADKS at 11:40 am
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Osmotica Pharma got final approval for venlafaxine XR
Osmotica Pharmaceutical is specializing in neurology based drug therapies and delivery technologies. The Osmotica Group has a portfolio of products in various stages of development focused in the treatment of Parkinson's disease.
Posted by ADKS at 5:40 pm
Precose (Acarbose): Cobalt Drops Suit Against USFDA
Cobalt said that it was dismissing the case against the USFDA without prejudice. Cobalt had brought the suit May 8 in the U.S. District Court of Columbia, alleging the USFDA had unlawfully forfeited the company’s 180-day marketing exclusivity for a generic version of Precose (acarbose).
Cobalt had maintained that it was the first company to file an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification on the drug’s ’769 patent, which has been delisted from the Orange Book. However, the FDA informed Cobalt May 7 that it had forfeited its right to generic exclusivity.
Cobalt said in court documents the FDA acknowledged its actions had delayed the company’s ability to market the product, but the agency said Cobalt had forfeited its exclusivity because it failed to obtain final approval and launch within 30 months of its 2005 ANDA submission.
Cobalt asked the court to enjoin the agency from approving all other ANDAs for the drug “until natural expiration of Cobalt’s statutory right to exclusivity for its acarbose ANDA.” It also requested that the FDA stay or withdraw approval for other acarbose ANDAs, including one from Boehringer Ingelheim’s subsidiary Roxane, which the agency approved May 7. Finally, it asked the court to order the FDA to recall any acarbose product made by Roxane on the market.
The court declined to issue a temporary restraining order against Roxane, finding that under the language of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, Cobalt was unlikely to prevail in the case and Roxane would suffer “significant competitive injury,” Zuckerman Spaeder, the law firm representing Roxane, said.
(Source: FDA news)
Posted by ADKS at 5:36 pm
GVK Biosciences And Wyeth Pharma In New Drug Discovery Pact
GVK Biosciences will be responsible for identifying drug candidates, which will be transferred to Wyeth to advance towards clinical studies, the statement added.
Posted by ADKS at 5:34 pm
Contrave (Bupropion and Naltrexone): Orexigen wins patent covering lead obesity drug
Orexigen anticipates results from the first Contrave late-stage trial late this year or early next year, with USFDA filing in late 2009.
The company has another obesity candidate, Empatic, currently in mid-stage trials. It is a combination of bupropion and zonisamide, which is used to treat seizures
Posted by ADKS at 5:30 pm
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Patent reexamination: an augmentation of litigation strategy rather than an alternative
Considered as an "alternative to litigation," recent research strongly suggests that Inter Partes Reexamination has become "an augmentation of litigation strategy rather than an alternative" (more than half (52%) of patents in inter partes re-exams are known to be in litigation during that time). People from the recently formed Institute for Progress (IFP) have published a study titled "Reexamining Inter partes Reexam". The study was published by iam-magazine.
The study highlights that it takes more than 3 ½ years for the average case to proceed through the basic reexam process to a final conclusion – this assumes that the case is not appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) or beyond. A range of between 34 and 53 months for average pendency for an un-appealed inter partes reexamination average pendency (assuming no “rework” by the patent office and no secondary appeals to the BPAI, the Federal Circuit, or the Supreme Court) is 78.4 months – slightly longer than 6.5 years. A 95% confidence interval suggests an average pendency for appealed cases (again, assuming no rework) is between 5 -8 years. Given that the only three inter partes reexam cases that have received a BPAI decision all require further “rework” and are subject to further appeal, these estimates may be highly conservative
The inter partes reexam process requires special attention by the U.S. Patent Office. At present, the time to complete these cases far exceeds the expectation of “special dispatch” embodied in the patent statute. Federal judges, administrative law judges, and litigants should take special note of these facts as they can significantly impact the progress of patent litigation.
Reexamination Process
Reexamination is a process whereby a third party or inventor can have a patent reexamined by a patent examiner to verify that the subject matter it claims is patentable. In order to have a patent reexamined, the party of interest must submit prior art that raises a "substantial new question of patentability".
request for a reexamination can be filed by anyone at anytime during the period of enforceability of a patent. In order to request a reexamination, one needs to submit a “request for reexamination”, pay a fee, and provide an explanation of the new reasons why the patent is invalid. These reasons must be based on prior art. Copies of the prior art must be provided and the requester has to let the patent owner know that a request has been filed. The USPTO will then review the request. If the request does raise a substantial new question of patentability, the USPTO will order a reexamination. Most requests for reexamination are filed by third parties. A substantial fraction of these parties are already involved in a patent infringement lawsuit. By filing a reexam, they can hopefully invalidate the patent while at the same time keeping their legal fees low. If the judge in the lawsuit agrees, then the trial proceedings may be delayed pending the outcome of the reexamination.
Ex parte reexaminations are initiated by members of the public, but once said members submit their request, they no longer actively participate in the proceedings. The correspondence is strictly between the examiner and the patent owner.
Inter partes reexaminations are initiated by member of the public, but said members of the public continue to participate in the proceedings.
Link to report
Link to presentation
Posted by ADKS at 10:44 am
Friday, 23 May 2008
Palivizumab: MedImmune and Genentech settled lawsuit
Biotechnology firms MedImmune and Genentech settled a lawsuit over a patented component of Synagis, MedImmune's best-selling drug, which is aimed at preventing respiratory infections in infants.
Palivizumab (brand name Synagis) is a monoclonal antibody produced by recombinant DNA technology. It is used in the prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) infections. It is recommended for certain infants that are high-risk (because of prematurity or other medical problems).
Palivizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG) directed against an epitope in the A antigenic site of the F protein of the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). In two Phase III clinical trials in the pediatric population, Palivizumab reduced the risk of hospitalization due to RSV infection by 55% and 45%. Palivizumab is dosed once a month via intramuscular (IM) injection, to be administered throughout the duration of the RSV season. Palivizumab targets the fusion protein of RSV, inhibiting its entry into the cell and thereby preventing infection.
The settlement follows a Supreme Court decision last year that allowed MedImmune to sue in an attempt to overturn a Genentech patent while MedImmune continued to pay royalties to use it. The patent covers a technology that uses cell cultures to manufacture human antibodies. MedImmune, a Gaithersburg-based unit of the drug giant AstraZeneca, said Genentech had illegally obtained the patent by conspiring with a British biotech company to monopolize the technology.
Posted by ADKS at 6:08 pm
Thursday, 22 May 2008
FTC’s Bureau of Competition Issues FY 2007 Summary of Pharmaceutical Company Settlement Agreements
The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition today issued (In a press release) a summary of agreements filed with the agency in fiscal year 2007 (ending September 30, 2007) by generic and branded drug manufacturers.
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 requires drug companies to file certain agreements with the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice. The summary provides information regarding the agreements filed with the FTC in FY 2007. It also compares FY 2007 data with data received in FY 2006, FY 2005, and FY 2004.
In fiscal year 2007, there were 33 final settlements, nearly half of which (14, or 42%) included both compensation to the generic company and a restriction on the generic’s ability to market its product. Of those 14 settlements, seventy-nine percent involved agreements with first-filer generic companies. Unlike FY 2006, however, most of the FY 2007 agreements involving restrictions on generic entry did not include a side deal involving elements not directly related to the resolution of the patent dispute. Instead, the majority involved compensation to the generic firm through an agreement by the branded firm not to sponsor or compete with an authorized generic product for some period of time.
“This report confirms that settlements with potentially anticompetitive arrangements continue to be prevalent,” FTC Chairman William E. Kovacic said. “The Commission remains committed to ensuring that brand and generic companies do not use such settlements as a way to deny consumers the benefits of competition.”
Commissioner Jon Leibowitz added, “As our report today sadly demonstrates, pay-for-delay settlements continue to proliferate. That’s good news for the pharmaceutical industry, which will make windfall profits on these deals. But it’s bad news for consumers, who will be left footing the bill. These agreements inflict special pain on the working poor and the elderly, who need effective drugs at affordable prices.”
In the 14 final settlement agreements received in FY 2007 that involved both a restriction on generic entry and compensation to the generic, the compensation took two forms: 1) In 11 of the final settlements, the branded company agreed not to launch or sponsor an authorized generic drug for some period of time after the entry of the generic drug company’s product; and 2) In three of the final settlements, the compensation flowed to the generic firm in the form of a side deal.
In six of the 14 agreements, both the brand and generic firm received compensation. In three of these six agreements, the branded company received a royalty in exchange for granting the generic firm a license to the patent at issue in three cases. In one case, the brand received a royalty payment on the generic firm’s sales of an authorized generic product. In another case, the brand received a royalty on the generic company’s sales of a particular dosage of the drug at issue in the litigation. And in the final case, the branded company could receive a percentage of the generic company’s sales of the drugs at issue in the litigation, as well as of some unrelated products.
The report also states that 11 of the settlements reported included a restriction on the generic drug’s ability to enter the market, with no compensation to the generic firm. In six of these cases, the generic withdrew its patent challenge, agreeing not to enter the market until the patent expired.
Eight settlements included no explicit restriction on the generic’s ability to market its product. In five of these cases, the generic was already on the market. Six of the eight settlements included no compensation to either firm; the two remaining settlements involved the generic paying the branded company a fixed sum.
In 16 of the 33 final settlements reported, the generic manufacturer was the first-filer with the FDA. Eleven of those agreements resulted in both a restriction on generic entry and compensation to the generic manufacturer. In addition, in FY 2007, nine interim agreements between branded and generic firms were reported. Seven of these involved either: 1) an agreement to stay the litigation and be bound by the results of litigation involving the same patents; 2) an agreement by the generic firm to provide the branded firm with advance notice of an “at risk” generic launch, to provide the branded firm with the opportunity to seek a preliminary injunction; or 3) an agreement by the generic firm not to introduce its generic product until the court ruled on a preliminary injunction motion.
Finally, the report states that in FY 2007, only one agreement was reported between generic drug manufacturers. Under the terms of the agreement, the first filer agreed to give up its 180-day marketing exclusivity period, thereby allowing the subsequent filer to receive FDA approval for its product. (Link to full Report)
Posted by ADKS at 11:23 am
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Protonix I.V. (Pantoprazole) :Wyeth, Nycomed Sue Sandoz For Patent Infringement
Protonix was previously one of Wyeth's top-selling drugs, racking up $1.9 billion in sales in 2007. But late last year, Teva began selling generic copies of the tablet formulation in the U.S. despite the existence of a patent for Protonix that doesn't expire until 2010. Teva soon halted shipments amid talks with Wyeth to settle patent-infringement litigation, but no settlement was reached.
Wyeth itself began selling an authorized generic Protonix in partnership with Prasco Laboratories, while Caraco Pharma, owned by Sun Pharma, has jumped in with a rival generic, too.
Wyeth has insisted that the Protonix patent is valid and is being infringed. The company plans to seek lost profits and other damages from Teva and Sun. Wyeth expects the case against those companies to go to trial in federal court by mid-2009.
Posted by ADKS at 4:51 pm
USPTO upheld one Viread (Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate) patent
The USPTO has not announced its ruling on the remaining three Viread patents under review, the company said.
The nonprofit Public Patent Foundation had challenged the Viread patents last year. The group said it submitted evidence that patent on Viread are obvious as per prior art.
Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate ( 1-(6-aminopurin-9-yl) propan-2-yloxymethylphosphonic acid ), belongs to a class of antiretroviral drugs known as nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (nRTIs), which block reverse transcriptase, an enzyme crucial to viral production in HIV-infected people.
Tenofovir is also available in a fixed-dose combination with emtricitabine in a product with the brand name Truvada for once-a-day dosing. (Emtricitabine is marketed as a single-compound product called Emtriva, also by Gilead.) Atripla, a fixed-dose triple combination of tenofovir, emtricitabine and efavirenz, was approved by the FDA on 12 July 2006 and is now available, providing a single daily dose for the treatment of HIV.
Posted by ADKS at 4:11 pm
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
FDA law blog:FDA Sued After Denying Citizen Petition and Approving Generic EFUDEX Cream ANDA; Agency Will Reconsider ANDA Approval
Posted by ADKS at 5:33 pm
U.S. District Court of Minnesota upheld NMT patent
The patent infringement lawsuit, originally filed in September 2004, alleged that Cardia’s Intrasept device infringes US5451235 (‘235). The ‘235 Patent is owned by the Children’s Medical Center Corporation and is licensed exclusively by NMT. In November 2007, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota issued a summary judgment ruling confirming the validity of the ‘235 Patent and holding that Cardia had infringed upon it.
As part of the settlement, Cardia will pay $2.25 million and agreed immediately to cease further production, marketing and sales of its Intrasept device. The cash payments will be divided equally between NMT and CMCC, following reimbursement of NMT’s legal fees and expenses. All parties have agreed to have the matter dismissed with prejudice.
Posted by ADKS at 5:33 pm
Biopure patent upheld by EPO
Biopure has successfully defended European challenge to a patent governing purification of its artificial blood substitute. Biopure said on Monday that it defended the challenge filed in the EPO involving a way it removes bad proteins from its main product. The ruling gives Biopure patent protection in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Switzerland's Octapharma AG had challenged the patent process.
Posted by ADKS at 5:26 pm
AstraZeneca jumps on hope for Quetiapine patent win
A U.S. court hearing over patents on AstraZeneca's blockbuster schizophrenia drug Seroquel (Quetiapine) has been brought forward to Tuesday from June 4, boosting hopes the Anglo-Swedish group may prevail in the case. (Link)
Posted by ADKS at 5:23 pm
Thursday, 15 May 2008
Moviprep: Salix Pharma sue Novel Lab
Posted by ADKS at 1:32 pm
Mylan launched Paroxetine Hydrochloride
Mylan Pharma has launched Paroxetine Hydrochloride (HCl) Extended-release (ER) Tablets, the generic version of GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) Paxil CR(R). As the first company to successfully file ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification for the 12.5 mg and 25 mg tablets, Mylan has earned 180 days of marketing exclusivity for these two strengths. Mylan has supply and distribution agreement with GSK. Mylan further has the right to market the 37.5 mg strength.
Posted by ADKS at 1:32 pm
Enoxaparin: US court affirms inequitable coduct against Sanofi
A U.S. federal court affirmed a ruling that Sanofi-Aventis intended to deceive the patent office in its dispute over generic versions of its blockbuster drug Lovenox.
Sanofi, the world's third-biggest drugmaker, has sued Teva Pharmaand Amphastar Pharma over their bid to sell a generic version of Sanofi's Lovenox, a blood-thinning drug that had sales of about $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2008.
Enoxaparin (6-[5-acetylamino-4,6-dihydroxy-2- (sulfooxymethyl)tetrahydropyran-3-yl] oxy-3- [5-(6-carboxy-4,5-dihydroxy-3- sulfooxy-tetrahydropyran-2-yl)oxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)- 3-sulfoamino-4-sulfooxy-tetrahydropyran-2-yl] oxy-4-hydroxy-5-sulfooxy-tetrahydropyran-2- carboxylicacid ) is a low molecular weight heparin manufactured by Sanofi-Aventis. It is marketed as Lovenox or Clexane. Enoxaparin injections are derived from the intestinal mucosa of pigs. Enoxaparin is used to prevent and treat deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and is given as a subcutaneous injection (by a health care provider or the patient). Its use is evolving in acute coronary syndromes (ACS).
Following patents are listed in Orange book for this product
US5389618 (Expiry: Feb 14, 2012)
USRE38743 (Expiry: Feb 14, 2012)
Earlier Amphastar and Teva ‘s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted on June 15, 2005, which held '618 patent invalid due to inequitable conduct. The USPTO reissued the disputed patent in June 2005 as USRE38743. Subsequently Aventis filed a Motion to substitute '618 for '743. On July 2005, the district Court granted the substitution of the patents and also entered final judgment on inequitable conduct grounds.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that pharma giant Sanofi-Aventis had committed "inequitable conduct" for failing to inform the U.S. patent office of information relevant to patentability.
The inequitable conduct was alleged w.r.t EP40144, which was granted in Europe as patent in 1980 (Which got revoked in 1990). The said patent covers the same invention as disclosed in ‘723. Aventis got ‘618 patent after overcoming 3 rejections by USPTO. Finally, Aventis demonstrated that pharmacokinetic profile with respect to t1/2 is better in ‘618 patent in comparison to ‘144 patent.
The federal court affirmed the ruling by a district court in California that there was an intent to deceive by Sanofi-Aventis in its failing to disclose dosages of the drug in pharmacokinetic studies.
The judge Radar dissented the ruling, arguing that inequitable conduct should be reserved for only the most extreme cases of fraud and deception, which he said did not apply in this case. In his dissenting note judge said that Aventis may have been careless, but hardly culpable
The USFDA has not cleared any generic form of Lovenox. (opinion of Court)
Posted by ADKS at 1:14 pm
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
perindopril tert-butylamine: UK Supreme court slammed patent ever greening attempt of innovator
Apotex challenged the validity of the patent, while Servier sought permission to amend it. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION (PATENTS COURT) The Hon Mr Justice Pumfrey, held that Servier's EP1296 947 was invalid for lack of novelty and obviousness. He gave permission to appeal applying the Pozzoli test. But he also refused to continue an interim injunction pending appeal on the grounds that he considered there was no real prospect of success. An application to this court for continuation of the injunction was refused on the same basis.
The upshot of all this is that were the patent valid, Servier's monopoly in practice would last until 2020. But the judge held the patent invalid. In our view, The EPO did not properly check the patent. This decision firmly prohibits patent ever greening by innovator companies (court opinion here)
Posted by ADKS at 12:47 pm
Aurbindo got MCC approval
Hyderabad based Aurobindo Pharma has received approvals from the Medicines Control Council (MCC) to manufacture and market nine products in South Africa. These products are estimated to have a generic market size of ZAR 165 million in the local market The following products received approval from MCC:
1) Auro-Lisinopril Co (CVS)
2) Auro-Amlodipine (CVS)
3) Auro-Finasterid (BPH)
4) Zinoxime (anti-infective)
5) Zolid (CNS)
6) Yomax (anti-infective)
7) Lazivir (ARV)
8) Lisinozide (CVS)
9) Profina (BPH)
Posted by ADKS at 12:45 pm
Phentolamine mesylate: Novalar Pharma got approval from USFDA
Novalar Pharma a dental specialty pharmaceutical company, announced that the USFDA has granted marketing approval for OraVerse (Phentolamine mesylate). OraVerse is the pharmaceutical agent indicated for the reversal of softtissue anaesthesia and the associated functional deficits resulting from a local dental aesthetic. Novalar is establishing a specialty direct sales force to launch OraVerse in late 2008.
Posted by ADKS at 12:42 pm
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
ZIOPHARM Receives Notices of Allowance for Two U.S. Patent Applications Covering anticancer drug Darinaparsin
ZIOPHARM announced that it has received Notices of Allowance from the USPTO for patent applications which covers claims for various organic arsenic compounds, including purified crystalline Darinaparsin, glycolic arsenicals, and the oral pharmaceutical composition of an organic arsenic compound, and their use in the treatment of cancer. A notice of allowance signifies that the applicant is entitled to a patent under the U.S law.
Posted by ADKS at 6:49 pm
Ranbaxy & Merck to jointly discover novel antibiotic molecule
After collaborating with Advinus therapeutics ( Tata group company) to discover and work on drugs for metabolic disorders and Nicholas Piramal (Anticancer drugs), The pharma giant Merck has now collaborated with Ranbaxy for novel antibiotic research. Ranbaxy Ltd. and Merck & Co., Inc have signed a strategic Product Development Agreement for a drug discovery and clinical development collaboration for new products, in the anti-infective field. Ranbaxy and Merck will work together to develop clinically effective anti-bacterial and anti-fungal drug candidates. Ranbaxy will carry-out drug discovery and clinical development through phase IIa clinical trials, with Merck conducting development and commercialization of drug candidates thereafter.
India is a good outsourcing destination for innovator companies. In recent times, some pharma companies have outsourced their work to Indian pharmaceutical companies.
Posted by ADKS at 2:49 pm
Monday, 12 May 2008
Court concern on baseless Para IV filings: Do your home work before challenging patent
The act of filing ANDA is not willfull infringement (Glaxo v/s Apotex, 2004: decision of court that act of filing ANDA on Cefuroxime Aexitil by Apotex is not a willfull infringement), but court in certain cases can grant attorney fees to winning party on baseless ANDA filing (21 U.S.C. 285) The US courts in the recent times have seen many ANDA filings with baseless para IV grounds, which are not strong cases to invalidate or design around the para IV certified patent. Now a generic company should be careful while filing Para IV, as a baseless ANDA filing can result in punishmnet from court. Orange book blog has concluded the above fact in a recent article : Link to orange book blog
Posted by ADKS at 1:16 pm
Sanofi, BMS hit by generic Plavix (Clopidogrel) threat in Europe
Sandoz, Hexal and Ratiopharm will be the marketing partner of Schweizerhall.
The EP281459 claims enatiomeric form of Clopidogrel sulfate as product and will expire on 15 Feb, 2013 (with SPC) in most European countries. But Schweizerhall said it was close to launching a generic version despite this.The innovator has claimed various salts of Clopidogrel like hydrochloride, hrdrobromide, taurocholate and bisulfate form.
Clopidogrel was first disclosed in EP99802, which covers Clopidogrel racemic form generically. The said patent has expired in 2003 in most European countries.
The Basel-based company expects approval shortly from German regulators for its version of clopidogrel, as Plavix is known generically, and it plans to launch the drug throughout the European Union in cooperation with marketing partners.
The Ippharmadoc believes that Schweizerhall may have design around EP281459 by developing a different salt form of clopidogrel.
Plavix suffered a major decrease in sales after Apotex launched a generic form of the medicine in August 2006. Although a New York federal judge blocked the sale of the generic weeks later, the huge supplies already on the market undermined sales of Plavix through early 2007. Recently, BMS and Sanofi were succcessful in blocking generic version in USA as reported earlier by this blog.
Posted by ADKS at 12:46 pm
Phrama News: Drug approvals
Roxane Lab. announced the approval of their ANDA for Acarbose Tablets, 25mg, 50mg, and 100mg. The product is available in bottles of 100 tablets for all strengths as well as Unit Dose Blisters for the 50mg strength and is available for immediate shipment to wholesalers and pharmacies nationwide
Mylan and Teva Introduces Ropinirole Hydrochloride Tablets
Mylan and Teva Pharma announced the introduction and availability of Ropinirole Hydrochloride Tablets. This product is AB rated and bioequivalent to Requip Tablets. Ropinirole HCl Tablets are available in 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1 mg, 2 mg, 3 mg, and 4 mg strengths, in bottle sizes of 100
Amneal got USFDA Approval for Three Generic Prescription Drugs
Sepracor Announces Final Settlement of Xopenex Inhalation Solution Patent Infringement Litigation
Sepracor announced that it has entered into a Settlement and License Agreement with Breath Limited (Breath), an Arrow Group subsidiary, to resolve the patent litigation involving Sepracor's Xopenex brand levalbuterol HCl Inhalation Solution products (1.25 mg/3 mL, 0.63 mg/3 mL and 0.31 mg/3 mL). The agreement permits Breath to launch generic versions of these Xopenex Inhalation Solution dosages under terms of an exclusive license commencing on August 20, 2012.
Teva Introduces Epoprostenol Sodium for Injection
Teva Pharma announced that the USFDA has granted approval to its ANDA to market Epoprostenol, a generic version of GlaxoSmithKline’s Flolan® for Injection
Mylan Announces Final FDA Approval for Trandolapril Tablets
Mylan got final approval from the USFDA for its ANDA for Trandolapril Tablets, 1 mg, 2 mg and 4 mg.
Ohm Lab (Ranbaxy subsidry) got Final Approval to Manufacture and Market Cetirizine Hydrochloride Oral Solution
Ohm Lab (Ranbaxy subsidry) announced that it has received final approval from the USFDA to manufacture and market Cetirizine Hydrochloride Oral Solution (Allergy) and Children's Cetirizine Hydrochloride Oral Solution (Hives-Relief), 1 mg/mL (OTC).
Posted by ADKS at 11:57 am
Barr got final approval to market Yasmin (Drospirenone and Ethinyl estradiol)
Barr Pharma announced that USFDA has approved the ANDA for generic version of the oral contraceptive Yasmin.
Barr challenged the Yasmin patent held by Bayer AG and in March, a U.S. district court found that the patent held by Bayer was invalid because it was obvious (as reported earlier by this blog). The German drugmaker has appealed the ruling.
Yasmin, known generically as Drospirenone and Ethinyl estradiol, had branded annual sales of about $575 million, Barr said.
The generic drugmaker said it planned to start selling its version of Yasmin in mid 2008. It expects, as the first to file for approval, to have 180 days of exclusivity before any other generic companies can start selling the contraceptive (news link to Reuters & Forbes)
Posted by ADKS at 11:31 am
Merck gets Indian patent for upcoming drugs
Pharma giant Merck & Co Inc has received patent approval from the Indian Patent Office for two of its upcoming drugs for dyslipidemia and obesity. The two new-patented drugs are in final stages of trial and are yet to receive the Drug Controller General of India’s (DCGI) (Link)
Posted by ADKS at 10:26 am
Phillippines patent law amendment:Draft law affirms patent rights of drug firms
Posted by ADKS at 10:01 am
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Suven secures European patent on SUVN-502
Posted by ADKS at 1:06 pm
Generics slam proposed drug patent rules in Canada
New patent rules just proposed by the federal government would delay generic versions of Lipitor, Viagra and several other blockbuster drugs by as much as two years, costing consumers and taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually, generic companies are warning.
(Link to full text news nationalpost)
Posted by ADKS at 1:04 pm
Monday, 5 May 2008
Oxaliplatin (Eloxatin): Innovator Sanofi-Aventis Sues Heraeus
Sanofi-Aventis has filed suit against W.C. Heraeus GmbH for infringement of US5338874 which covers oxaliplatin as product. Eloxatin is covered by following patents
US5338874 (Expiry Apr 07,2013)
US5420319 (Expiry Aug 08,2016)
US5716988 (Expiry Aug 07,2015)
US5290961 (Expiry Jan 12, 2013)
Sanofi-Aventis alleged Infringement of US5338874 ("Cis oxalato (trans 1-1,2-cyclohexanediamine) PT(II) Having Optically High Purity," issued August 16, 1994) based on Heraeus' filing of a DMF (drug master file) with the FDA for the manufacture of Eloxatin® (oxaliplatin for injection, used to treat colorectal cancer).
Oxaliplatin is a platinum-based chemotherapy drug in the same family as cisplatin and carboplatin. It is typically administered in combination with fluorouracil and leucovorin in a combination known as FOLFOX for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Compared to cisplatin the two ammine groups are replaced by cyclohexyldiamine for improved antitumour activity. The chlorine ligands are replaced by the oxalato bidentate derived from oxalic acid in order to improve water solubility.
Oxaliplatin was discovered in 1976 at Nagoya City University in Japan by Professor Yoshinori Kidani, who was granted U.S. Patent 4,169,846 over the drug in 1979. Oxaliplatin was subsequently in-licensed by Debiopharm, a Swiss drug company headquartered in Lausanne and developed as an advanced colorectal cancer treatment. Debio licensed the drug to Sanofi-Aventis in 1994. Eloxatin gained European approval in 1999 and USFDA approval in 2004.
Posted by ADKS at 4:37 pm
Atorvastatin: Relief to Pfizer on 893' reexamination
Pfizer announced that it had received a Notice of Intent to Issue an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for US4681893 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The '893 patent, which expires in March 2010, is product patent of Atorvastatin Hemicalcium. This patent covers racemic Atorvastatin.
The reexamination request was filed by a lawfirm representing Ranbaxy in July 2007. In the Notice of Intent's Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or Confirmation, the Examiner indicated that Pfizer had overcome obviousness rejections based on EP0179 559 and US4647576. (Pfizer press release) (Patent doc article link )
Posted by ADKS at 4:33 pm
P&G sues J&J over tooth-whitening strip patent
Procter & Gamble filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, The plaintiff alleges that the Listerine strips infringe P&G patents related to the tooth whitening active ingredient and delivery systems.
P&G has asked the court to stop J&J and its subsidiries, from making, selling, and importing allegedly infringing products. P&G also is seeking recovery of damages.
Posted by ADKS at 4:22 pm
Nabi Biopharmaceuticals patent upheld
Nabi Biopharmaceuticals has prevailed in a challenge of its European patent for the process that covers its NicVAX® vaccine. In a recent ruling, the European Patent Office (EPO) upheld the firm’s European Patent EP1135166. In July 2005, Cytos Biotechnology AG filed a Notice of Opposition against Nabi's European patent and the Company filed its response in December 2005. The EPO notified Nabi in September 2007 that the opposition filing was admissible and held a hearing on April 23, 2008. The EPO cancelled some claims in the patent that do not affect the primary claim protecting Nabi Biopharmaceuticals' exclusive use of NicVAX for its intended purpose of treating and preventing nicotine addiction. Nabi plans to appeal these ancillary claim cancellations.
NicVAX is a nicotine conjugate vaccine intended to reduce or eliminate physical addiction to nicotine. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, NicVAX can potentially be used to inoculate against addiction. This proprietary vaccine is being developed by Nabi Biopharmaceuticals with the aid of the University of Houston-Clear Lake and University of Minnesota. NicVAX consists of the hapten 3'-aminomethylnicotine which has been conjugated (attached) to Pseudomonas aeruginosa exoprotein A.
Posted by ADKS at 4:19 pm
Atorvastatin: Pfizer sued Teva in the District Court of Delaware
Posted by ADKS at 4:06 pm
Drug companies oppose bid to link marketing, patents
The drug controller general of India (DCGI), Surinder Singh, had said in a conference last week that he intended to reject applications to sell copycat versions of a patented drug from other drug makers in India. This could avoid ticklish situations where a generics manufacturer gets the marketing go-ahead from DCGI for a drug patented by another. (link to full text article)
Posted by ADKS at 12:03 pm