expiration of United States Patent No. 6,958,161 (“the ’161 Patent”); United States Patent
No. 9,295,652 (“the…’652 Patent”); United States Patent No. 9,446,057 (“the ’057 Patent”); and
United States Patent No. 9,511,031…infringement of the ’161 Patent, the ’652 Patent,
the ’057 Patent, and the ’031 Patent.
12. This…Mayne owns the ’161 Patent, the ’652 Patent, the ’057 Patent, and the ’031
Patent.
… 23. The ’161 Patent, the ’652 Patent, the ’057 Patent, and the ’031 Patent are listed in
the Approved
or about 10/2/2017. Date of Expiration of Patent: 6,958,161 - 12/12/2022; 9,295,652 - 10/23/2034; 9,446,057…
Supplemental information for patent cases involving an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) …2017
23 January 2019
1:17-cv-01614
835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA)
None
the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 6,958,161 B2; 9,295,652 B1; 9,446,057…2017
23 January 2019
1:17-cv-01614
835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA)
None
the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 6,958,161 B2; 9,295,652 B1; 9,446,057…2017
23 January 2019
1:17-cv-01614
835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application(ANDA)
None
Litigation Summary and Analysis for Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
Introduction
The case of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, while not directly detailed in the provided sources, can be analyzed through the context of similar pharmaceutical litigation cases. This summary will draw parallels from related cases to provide an insightful analysis.
Background of Pharmaceutical Litigation
Pharmaceutical litigation often involves complex issues such as patent infringement, anticompetitive practices, and the entry of generic drugs into the market. Here are some key points from similar cases:
Patent Infringement and Anticompetitive Practices: In cases like the FTC's action against AbbVie and Besins, it was found that the defendants used sham litigation to delay the entry of generic drugs, thereby maintaining monopoly power and causing harm to consumers[1].
Generic Drug Entry: The entry of generic drugs is crucial for reducing drug prices and increasing competition. However, branded drug manufacturers often use various tactics to delay this entry, such as reverse payments and baseless lawsuits[1].
Case Context: Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
Given the lack of direct information on this specific case, we can infer the likely issues based on common themes in pharmaceutical litigation.
Patent Infringement Claims
The case likely involves claims of patent infringement by Mayne Pharma against Actavis Elizabeth LLC. This is a common scenario where the patent holder (Mayne Pharma) alleges that the generic drug manufacturer (Actavis Elizabeth LLC) has infringed on their patent rights.
Anticipation and Obviousness Defenses: Defendants in such cases often argue that the patent is invalid due to anticipation or obviousness. For example, in the case involving Sanofi-Aventis and Mayne Pharma, the defendant argued that the patent was invalid due to anticipation, which required substantial discovery and fact-intensive considerations[4].
Procedural Background
The litigation would have involved various procedural steps such as the filing of complaints, motions for summary judgment, and discovery processes.
Summary Judgment Motions: Defendants may seek summary judgment to resolve the case quickly, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. For instance, in the Sanofi-Aventis case, Mayne Pharma sought leave to file a summary judgment motion based on anticipation, which was granted by the court[4].
Anticompetitive Practices
The case might also involve allegations of anticompetitive practices, such as the use of sham litigation or reverse payments to delay the entry of generic drugs. This is a critical issue as seen in the FTC's actions against pharmaceutical companies[1].
Key Issues and Arguments
Patent Validity
The validity of the patent in question would be a central issue. Mayne Pharma would need to prove that their patent is valid and that Actavis Elizabeth LLC has infringed upon it.
Defendant's Arguments: Actavis Elizabeth LLC might argue that the patent is invalid due to anticipation or obviousness, requiring the court to consider whether the invention was already known or obvious to a person of skill in the art[4].
Anticompetitive Allegations
If allegations of anticompetitive practices are made, the court would need to determine whether Mayne Pharma used such tactics to maintain monopoly power and delay generic competition.
FTC Precedents: The FTC's findings in similar cases, such as the AbbVie and Besins case, would be relevant in assessing whether the actions of Mayne Pharma were anticompetitive[1].
Potential Outcomes
Summary Judgment
If the court grants a summary judgment motion, it could significantly narrow the issues and parties involved in the case, potentially ending the litigation early[4].
Trial and Equitable Relief
If the case proceeds to trial, the court would need to determine the validity of the patent and whether any anticompetitive practices were employed. Equitable relief, such as monetary damages or injunctive relief, could be awarded if the court finds in favor of Mayne Pharma[1].
Impact on the Pharmaceutical Industry
Generic Drug Entry
The outcome of this case could impact the timing and feasibility of generic drug entry into the market, affecting competition and consumer prices.
Anticompetitive Practices
The case could set precedents for how anticompetitive practices are handled in the pharmaceutical industry, influencing future litigation and regulatory actions.
Key Takeaways
Patent Validity: The validity of the patent is a crucial issue in pharmaceutical litigation.
Anticompetitive Practices: Allegations of anticompetitive practices, such as sham litigation or reverse payments, are significant and can lead to substantial penalties.
Regulatory Impact: The outcome of such cases can influence regulatory actions and future litigation in the pharmaceutical industry.
FAQs
What is the typical basis for patent infringement claims in pharmaceutical litigation?
Patent infringement claims in pharmaceutical litigation typically involve allegations that a generic drug manufacturer has made, used, or sold a drug that infringes on the patent rights of the branded drug manufacturer.
How do reverse payments affect the entry of generic drugs?
Reverse payments can delay the entry of generic drugs by providing financial incentives to generic manufacturers to forgo entry into the market, thereby maintaining the monopoly power of the branded drug manufacturer.
What is the role of the FTC in pharmaceutical litigation?
The FTC plays a crucial role in enforcing antitrust laws, including investigating and prosecuting cases involving anticompetitive practices such as sham litigation and reverse payments in the pharmaceutical industry.
What are the potential outcomes of a summary judgment motion in pharmaceutical litigation?
A summary judgment motion can result in the early resolution of the case, narrowing the issues and parties involved, or it can be denied, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
How do anticompetitive practices in pharmaceutical litigation affect consumers?
Anticompetitive practices, such as delaying the entry of generic drugs, can result in higher drug prices and reduced competition, ultimately harming consumers.
Cited Sources
FTC Actions in Pharmaceutical Products and Distribution - FTC, September 30, 2020.
Granillo v. Weatherford U.S., L.P. - Casetext.
Town of Andover v. Teva et al. - United States District Court, District of Massachusetts.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Mayne Pharma Limited et al. - United States District Court, District of New Jersey.
Drugs may be covered by multiple patents or regulatory protections. All trademarks and applicant names are the property of their respective owners or licensors.
Although great care is taken in the proper and correct provision of this service, thinkBiotech LLC does not accept any responsibility for possible consequences of errors or omissions in the provided data.
The data presented herein is for information purposes only. There is no warranty that the data contained herein is error free.
thinkBiotech performs no independent verification of facts as provided by public sources nor are attempts made to provide legal or investing advice. Any reliance on data provided herein is done solely at the discretion of the user.
Users of this service are advised to seek professional advice and independent confirmation before considering acting on any of the provided information. thinkBiotech LLC reserves the right to amend, extend or withdraw any part or all of the offered service without notice.
Alerts Available With Subscription
Alerts are available for users with active subscriptions.
