Pharma Patent Battles: Bristol Myers, Sanofi, Pfizer File Suits; Sarepta Loses Rehearing
Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Pfizer have filed new patent infringement suits over drugs including Camzyos, Lantus, and abrocitinib, while the Federal Circuit denied Sarepta's rehearing bid in a Regenxbio DNA patent case.
Pharmaceutical companies have recently filed and defended patent infringement lawsuits in U.S. courts. Bristol Myers Squibb and MyoKardia filed patent infringement suits in Delaware against a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including MSN Laboratories and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, targeting their planned generic versions of the cardiac drug Camzyos. Sanofi sued Eli Lilly in Delaware over four patents related to its diabetes treatments, and Pfizer filed suits seeking to block competitors' dermatitis drugs. In a separate appellate action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Sarepta's petition for rehearing in a case involving Regenxbio.
The Sanofi lawsuit was triggered by Eli Lilly's notification that it plans to ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for permission to put a new diabetes treatment on the market. Sanofi is seeking to protect its insulin drug Lantus and insulin pen Lantus SoloStar, which generate a sixth of the company's sales. Eli Lilly is challenging Sanofi patents listed for Lantus and has stated that it will not launch its own product before the expiry of Sanofi's patent on the drug's active ingredient, which is in force until mid-February 2015.
Pfizer's patent suits target generic versions of its dermatitis drug abrocitinib. The drug giant said the generic products by all three companies would infringe. Changzhou Pharmaceutical Factory and Micro Labs Ltd. notified Pfizer in March that they were seeking approval for their abrocitinib tablet products.
In the Sarepta case, the Federal Circuit's denial leaves intact the panel's precedential finding that U.S. Patent No. 10,526,617 is eligible for patenting under Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act. The court denied rehearing both by the three-judge panel that issued the February decision and by the court's full slate of judges.