Sign up for a free trial to IAM magazine including full archive access by clicking on the button below
You need to have cookies enabled in your browser to permanently hide this pop up.
Teva pays the price for premature marketing authorisation
Carpmaels & Ransford - UK
19 Sep 2012
The UK High Court has granted Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb (jointly, “BMS”) an interim injunction preventing Teva from launching its generic version of blockbuster anti-retroviral SUSTIVA®. This pro-patentee decision sounds a warning to companies seeking marketing approval for generic drugs well in advance of expiry of the brand owner’s period of exclusivity ( EWHC 627 (Pat)).
The facts were as follows:
BMS alleged that Teva’s actions amounted to a threat and intent to market Efavirenz Teva and thus to infringe the patent. Teva argued that BMS’s case had no reasonable grounds because no infringement had yet taken place and its actions did not amount to a threat to infringe. The questions of whether the launch of Efavirenz Teva would amount to infringement of the patent and whether the patent was valid were not considered in these proceedings.
BMS’s case rested on three main points:
The judge held that it was not enough for BMS simply to fear that Teva might commit an infringing act. The key was the existence of a threat and an intention to infringe, and whether the court could infer the existence of such a threat in the absence of any infringing activities.
Marketing authorisation granted 22 months before SPC expiry
On the facts, the judge held that BMS had sufficient basis to bring its claim for pre-trial relief. The presence of the marketing authorisation was the concrete basis for the inference that Teva threatened and intended to sell Efavirenz Teva at some point in the future. Crucially, when coupled with the fact that the marketing authorisation was obtained 22 months before SPC expiry, this was sufficient to infer that Teva threatened and intended to launch Efavirenz Teva before the patent expired.
Teva could not provide convincing reasons why it was normal commercial practice to obtain a marketing authorisation so far in advance of patent expiry, and so could not discharge the inference that this was done because there was intent to launch before expiry.
Teva’s failure to state its intentions following BMS’s letters in December 2011 and January 2012 was also considered to be highly relevant. The judge held that this silence alone would not have been determinative; however, the silence coupled with the marketing authorisation acquired 22 months in advance of patent expiry was sufficient for the court to draw an inference that Teva intended to launch before patent expiry and before full trial. The existence and timing of the marketing authorisation were critical.
The judge pointed out that the imminence of the threat was highly relevant in deciding whether to grant pre-trial relief in the form of an injunction. For example, if Teva’s intent was to launch as far in the future as October 2013 (which was still before SPC expiry), then an interim injunction would not be necessary because a normal trial could run its course and resolve the issues before October 2013. If the patentee succeeded at full trial, then a final injunction would be available to preserve its rights.
In connection with the question of imminence, Teva’s conduct in the atorvastatin litigation was considered to be important, as this showed that it was capable of “surreptitiously” launching a generic drug in advance of patent expiry, even when its stated intention was to the contrary.
Balance of convenience
In light of the above findings, the judge also held that the “balance of convenience” favoured BMS (ie, that not granting the interim injunction would cause greater unquantifiable damage to BMS than granting the injunction would cause to Teva).
BMS argued that launch of Efavirenz Teva would cause it serious and irremediable harm given the size of the market and the inevitable price drop that would occur following such a launch. Teva filed no evidence to counter this point or respond to the argument that it had taken no action to “clear the way” by seeking a declaration of non-infringement and/or revocation of the patent.
Generics manufacturers will need to be careful when applying for early marketing authorisations, especially when questioned by patent holders about their true intentions with regard to the launch of generic products. Additionally, companies should bear in mind the importance of dealing with “clean hands”, in view of the UK courts’ willingness to take into account equitable considerations, such as a company’s previous commercial actions.
For further information please contact: