Legal

In a precedential decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined the meaning of the language “the patent” as it applies to patent-term extensions for reissued patents, in the context of Aurobindo’s bid to wipe out a reissued patent shielding Merck & Co’s Bridion (sugammadex) injectable.

Amgen’s biosimilar aflibercept formulation is keeping it head and shoulders above other would-be Eylea biosimilar competitors, while continuing to frustrate originator Regeneron’s push to block sales of the product while it battles Amgen over alleged infringement of a key US patent.

In its latest legal case, Vanda lost its case against the FDA and Teva over the alleged unlawful approval of the Israeli firm’s generic Hetlioz.

The US Association for Accessible Medicines says it is looking to “protect the public’s interests in ensuring that patents do not let inventors control more than they invented,” as it moved to file in support of MSN Laboratories’ legal tussle with Novartis over a key patent shielding the originator’s $7.8bn Entresto blockbuster.

The biotech industry faces a surge in litigation due to stricter regulations and patent disputes. This legal storm challenges companies and investors, but there are proactive strategies for mitigating risk in this dynamic landscape.

A month after Vanda failed to win a trade secrets case against the US FDA corresponding to generic approvals for its brands Hetlioz and Fanapt, the originator has again fallen, this time to the agency and Teva in the alleged unlawful approval of the Israeli firm’s generic Hetlioz product.

While the UK Court of Appeal’s decision in Merck Serono v Comptroller-General will be unwelcome by innovators, it provides much-needed certainty for companies seeking – or seeking to invalidate – supplementary protection certificates based on marketing authorizations for new uses of known active ingredients.

Legal heavyweights from Nishith Desai Associates, Anand and Anand, Corporate Law Group and EY partner and national cyber leader talk about compliance requirements that pharma and global capability centers may need to consider as India strengthens the framework for the protection of digital personal data.

In September last year, J&J lost a court case surrounding its 2019 purchase of Auris health, and was ordered to pay over $1bn in damages. Reactions to the potentially precedent-setting news were harsh and quick. In Vivo spoke to legal, M&A and BD experts from across the medtech industry to learn more about the true impacts.

Legal heavyweights from Nishith Desai Associates, Anand and Anand, Corporate Law Group and EY partner and national cyber leader outline key compliance aspects that pharma and their global capability centers may need to factor as India moves to strengthen the framework for the protection of digital personal data.