Upload
shauna-crawford
View
215
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Whether to Pursue Enforcement at the ITC and/or District Court; and
Preparing for PTAB Challenges to Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Patents
JOINT BIOTECH-ITC COMMITTEE PRESENTATION
2
2
INTRODUCTIONS
• Brian Koo, Investigative Attorney with the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) at the U.S. International Trade Commission, in a cameo role
• Kwame N. Mensah, Intellectual Property Counsel at AstrZeneca/MedImmune, featured as “Soteria’s General Counsel”
• Vicki G. Norton, Co-Leader, Global Life Sciences at Duane Morris LLP featured as “Soteria’s Director of IP”
Soteria BiosciencesDiscovered and commercialized its NoPainNoGain drug based on an extract from Humor plantsDeveloped a second generation therapeutic, Soterigen® NPGB, a biologic drug (polypeptide) with pain relieving effects, which does not cause weight gain or memory loss (NoPain/NoGain/Better Brain (NPGB)). Soterigen ® NPGB received approval 10 years ago.
Find out more about Soteria athttp://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Biotechnology/Soteria/SitePages/Home.aspx
Disclaimer: Soteria Biosciences is a hypothetical biotech company. Fact patterns and legal issues relating to Soteria Biosciences are for educational and entertainment purposes only. All entities, characters, and fact patterns presented herein
are fictitious. Any resemblance to real entities, persons, and/or facts is purely coincidental.
SOTERIA PATENT ENFORCEMENTWhether to Pursue Enforcement at the ITC
and/or District Court; and Preparing for PTAB Challenges to Pre-AIA and
Post-AIA Patents
OCTOBER 22, 2015 MEETING WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL3:30-5:30 pm
5
5
INTRODUCTIONS
• Maximilienne Giannelli, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP as Soteria’s outside ITC/litigation counsel
• Dallin G. Glenn, Stern Kessler Goldstein Fox as Soteria’s outside ITC/litigation counsel
• Herbert D. Hart III, partner at McAndrews Held & Malloy as Soteria’s outside PTAB counsel
Patent Family
Claimed Subject Matter Filing Date
Term (+PTE)
NPGB Main (Pre-AIA)
NPGBCompositions; formulations
3/17/01 3/17/241
NPGB Main NPGB Gene; constructs; methods of making construct; recombinantly expressed NPGB; mammalian expression systems
3/17/01 3/17/21
NPGB Humor(Post AIA)
NPGB-BG (Track One)Methods of expressing in plants
3/17/13 3/17/33
NPGB Humor Methods of expressing NPGB in plants 3/17/13 3/17/33
NPGB Neuro(Post AIA)
Methods of treating neurodegenerative diseases
3/17/13 3/17/33
1 Soteria secured 3 years PTE for its NPGB composition patent
7
7
SameGene Activities
SG
• SameGene announced it filed its Biosimilar Application a few months ago and recently issued a press release saying that has a meeting scheduled with an FDA Advisory Committee in a few months
• SameGene didn’t give us a copy of its aBLA or provide any manufacturing information
Brian Koo, US International Trade Commission, Washington, DCMaximilienne Giannelli, Ph.d., Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC
Dallin Glenn, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, Washington, DC
8
Whether to Pursue Enforcement of Soteria Bioscience’s Patents before the ITC
[Biotech-image – polypeptide/membrane?]
Brian Koo – Maximilienne Giannelli – Dallin Glenn
9
9
Blocking Importation
(1) Likelihood of success(2) Irreparable harm(3) Balance of equities(4) Public interest
• Timeline – 1 to 6 months
10
10
Blocking Importation
• Irreparable harm: imminent• BPCIA 180-day notice• Likelihood of success: discovery
BPCIA 180-day notice
Amgen Inc. v Sandoz Inc., C.A. App. No. 2015-1499 (July 21, 2015).
11
11
Blocking Importation
• ITC: Temporary exclusion order • Comparable to a preliminary injunction in district court
Temporary Relief: 4 – 6 months
(case continues to hearing on final relief)
Complaintrequesting temporary
relief Institution
1 month
TEO ID
70 days or 120 days
Final ID on TEO(unless Commission
modifies)
20 days or 30 days
12
12
Blocking Importation
35 USC 271(e)(1) 35 USC 271(e)(2)
It shall not be an act of infringement … solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products.
It shall be an act of infringement to submit … an application seeking approval of a biological product, … if the purpose of such submission is to obtain approval … to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of a … biological product claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent
13
13
Blocking Importation
TrialInitial
Determination
Final Commission
Decision
9 months 3 months 4 months
Complaint filed Institution
1 month
• ITC: Final resolution in less than 18 months
14
14
Blocking Importation
Amgen v. ITC (2009)
Federal Circuit vacated summary determination based on safe harbor defense. • Held that Section 271(e)(1) safe harbor can
apply at the ITC, • but remanded for more facts
15
15
Blocking Importation
Temporary Relief: 4 – 6 months
(case continues to hearing on final relief)
Complaintrequesting temporary
relief Institution
1 month
TEO ID
70 days or 120 days
Final ID on TEO(unless Commission
modifies)
20 days or 30 days
• ITC: Temporary exclusion order • Comparable to a preliminary injunction in district court
16
16
Jurisdiction
• ITC: in rem jurisdiction
Products Ñ Imported by or on behalf of named respondentsÑ Respondents subject to discovery, regardless of ties
to the United StatesÑ Certain Gemcitabine, Inv. No. 337-TA-766
17
17
Jurisdiction
• ITC: in rem jurisdiction
Ñ Certain Gemcitabine, Inv. No. 337-TA-766
D. Conn.N. D. Ill.
Canada U.K.Denmark
Singapore
Australia
18
18
IPR Considerations
19
19
IPR Considerations
District Court Stays Post-Institution
GrantedDeniedPartial
~ 65%~ 25%
~ 10%
• ITC: no stays granted; few requests filed
20
Joint Committee CLE SessionBiotechnology and ITC Committees
American Intellectual Property Law Association 2015 Annual Meeting
Facing The New Wolf Pack:Preparing For Post-Grant Challenges At The Patent Trial And Appeal Board
Herb HartMcAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd.
21
21
Pre-AIA patents:
• Ex parte reexamination (anyone)
• Inter partes review (anyone)
• Interference (rival inventor)
22
22
Post-AIA patents
• Ex parte reexamination• Inter partes review
– “ reasonable likelihood”– No “new issue” needed
23
23
Post-AIA patents
• Post grant review– any ground – “more likely than not”.– broad scope of estoppel
• Derivation proceeding
24
24
Timing
• Ex parte reexamination - no time constraints
• Interference – no predictability
– see 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1) and (b)(2).
• Inter partes review of pre-AIA patent
– No later than one year from service of complaint
– Otherwise, any time
25
25
Timing
• Inter partes review of AIA patent
– No earlier than 9 months from grant
– No later than one year from service of complaint
• Post grant review of AIA patent
– No later than 9 months from grant
26
26
PTAB Procedure
• Expedited trial schedule
• Unique PTAB trial practice
• Very limited discovery
27
27
PTAB Procedure
• “Discovery” is not discovery defined by Rule 26
• A “trial” is not a live hearing before the PTAB.
• A “deposition” is not a discovery deposition under Rule 26.
• Oral argument is dominated by the technology
28
28
Patentee Concerns about the PTAB
• Speed
• Standard of Proof
• No presumption of validity
• Broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) – not Phillips
29
29
Patentee concerns about PTAB
• Much lower cost than district court
• Scientifically and technically trained decision-makers
• Potential stay of related district court cases
30
30
Preparation for a PTAB Challenge
• Prior Art Searching
• Proactive prosecution
• Reissue application(s)
• Ex parte reexamination
31
31
Preparation for a PTAB Challenge
• Identification and engagement of experts
• Early review of potential vulnerabilities
• Early consideration of potential options for resolution
32
32
Offensive Post-Grant Challenges
• Defensive strategy in district court proceedings
• Freedom-to-operate tool
33
33
• Biotech patents – less than 10% of challenges• Perceived lower success rate than tech patents• New player – Kyle Bass hedge fund
34
34
Key lessons
• It’s never too early to prepare
• Keep the PTO correspondence address current
• Develop and update an objective assessment
• Engage experienced PTAB trial counsel
35
35
Section 101
SOTERIA BIOSCIENCES
19 U.S.C. 1337(c): At the ITC, “All legal and equitable defenses may be presented in all cases.”
September 16, 2015 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 100-day proceedings on dispositive issues
36
36
Patent Enforcement
SOTERIA BIOSCIENCES
• Eli Lilly and Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 82 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996).• Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Therefor,
337-TA-604, Comm’n Op. (Apr. 29, 2009).• Kinik Co. v. ITC, 362 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
• Kinik: § 271(g) does not apply • Certain Sucralose: ITC may enforce claims covering
intermediates
• Eli Lilly: 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) “materially changed” provision may preclude enforcement of claims to intermediates
37
37
Patent Enforcement
SOTERIA BIOSCIENCES
• AIA restricts joinder in district court• claims arising out of the same
transaction(s) or occurrence(s); or• common questions of fact;• 35 USC § 299(a).
• ITC presently has no limits on joinder• But, ITC may amend Rule 210.10:
• technologies, and/or • unrelated patents.
38
38
Patent Enforcement
Suprema v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2015)
• Commission found induced infringement based on willful blindness
• 2013 Panel: Infringement must occur at time of importation
• 2015 En banc: Deference to Commission • 2015 Panel: Affirmed willful blindness
39
39
Damages
• District court: damages• Stay, 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)• Record transfers, 28 U.S.C. § 1659(b)
40
40
ITC Litigation
Domestic Industry based on
clinical trials
Investments related to clinical trials and regulatory approval can count toward domestic industry,
but consider Lelo v. ITC
41
41
ITC Litigation
Be ready to file
1. Experienced ITC counsel2. Timing and importation3. Domestic Industry position4. Claim Charts5. Public Interest Statement
42
42
AT THE ITC
43
43
AT THE ITC
• Review of draft complaint with Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII)
• OUII has an active role prior to institution of the investigation and in most cases after institution
• OUII is an independent party representing the public interest in the investigations in which it participates
• Active role in discovery, motions practice, Markman, and trial
44
44
ITC Litigation
• Fast pace of the investigation
• Discovery served the day after publication of the notice of institution in the Federal Register
• Answer to the complaint due in 20 days from service (upon institution)
• Markman hearing as early as 3 months of institution
• Trial typically within 9-10 months of institution of investigation
• Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) issue post-trial findings by initial determinations (ID) typically within 12 months of institution of investigation
45
45
ITC Litigation
• Review of IDs by the Commissioners, Office of General Counsel
• Conclusion of the investigation (“target date”) typically within 16 months of institution; can be extended by majority vote of the Commission
• Presidential review (delegated to U.S. Trade Representative) within 60 days of issuance of Commission’s Final Determination
• During the 60 day period, infringing products can enter the United States under bond
46
46