24.6 C
New York

Tag: justices

Federal Appeals Court Affirms the Role of ‘Balance’ in Scheme for Extending Term of Pharmaceutical Patents

Federal Appeals Court Affirms the Role of ‘Balance’ in Scheme for Extending Term of Pharmaceutical Patents

Balance On 18 March 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia issued decisions relating to term extensions of patents covering pharmaceutical products: Commissioner of Patents v Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd [2022] FCAFC 39 (‘Ono’); and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v Sandoz Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 40 (‘MSD’).  The two decisions have (at least) three things in common.  First, both were decided unanimously by a panel comprising Chief Justice Alsop and Justices Yates and Burley.  Second, both found against the patentee, with the court reversing the primary judge’s decision in Ono granting an extension of term, and confirming the primary judge’s decision in MSD nullifying a previously granted extension of term.  And, third, both referred to the principle set out in the objects clause (section 2A) of the Patents Act 1990 that ‘the patent system balances over time the interests of producers, owners and users of technology and the public’ (emphasis added).

The scheme for extending the term of pharmaceutical patents inherently involves a balancing act.  Its primary purpose is to ensure that patentees are not excessively disadvantaged by delays in securing regulatory approval to market patented products.  For example, if a drug is not approved for use until 10 years or more after a patent application is filed, the patentee may have less than half of the standard 20 year patent term remaining to compensate for its investment in discovery and development before becoming exposed to generic competition.  On the other hand, an extended period without competition necessarily exposes the wider public to higher costs of medical treatment.  In an effort to balance these competing interests, the relatively complex provisions of the Patents Act aim to ensure that a ‘typical’ pharmaceutical patentee benefits from up to 15 years of exclusivity, by granting extensions of the patent term of up to five years, i.e. to a maximum of 25 years from filing.  (A 2013 review of pharmaceuticals patents – which the government initially declined to release – found that 53% of such patents have an effective life of 15 years, while 89% have an effective life of over 10 years.)

The primary provisions of the Patents Act governing extensions of patent term are:

  1. section 70, which sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before a patentee can apply for an extension of the term of its patent;
  2. section 71, which sets time limits for filing of applications for extensions of term; and
  3. section 77, which specifies how the duration of an extension of term is to be calculated. 

In each of Ono and MSD, the patentee sought to obtain an advantage, or avoid disadvantage, by arguing for beneficial interpretations of the extension of term provisions.  In each case they failed.  And in both cases the Full Court upheld the principle that the purpose of the extension of term scheme is to balance the competing interests of the patentee of a pharmaceutical substance against the public interest in the unrestricted use of the pharmaceutical invention after expiry of the patent.  In Ono, in particular, the Full Court rejected the proposition that sections 70, 71, and 77 should be construed to achieve a commercial outcome for the patentee.  In MSD the Full Court again invoked the principle of ‘balance’ in declining to permit an extension of term based on a later Australian marketing approval, in circumstances where the patentee had already obtained the benefit of an ‘export only’ approval of a substance falling within its patent claims with an effective life of over 15 years.

The relevance of the Full Court’s focus on balancing of interests, and its references to the objects clause, could extend beyond these cases.  The three judges here are all among the five who recently heard the appeal in the Thaler ‘AI inventor’ case, in which the competing interests of developers and owners of ‘invention machines’, and of the broader public (who might not see the same benefit in granting patent monopolies on automatically-generated inventions), are potentially at stake.  It will be interesting to see whether they adopt a similar approach to weighing up the balance of interests in that case, also.

Read more »

Top News

Setbacks In Germany Due to Delays on Forward Reform

The regulatory mishmash that currently exists in Germany is putting both patients and other projects on hold, if not in limbo.

The post Setbacks In Germany Due to Delays on Forward Reform appeared first on High Times.

Nepal Closes Two Casinos After Racking Up Millions in Unpaid Licenses and Royalties

Despite a return to business following COVID-19, two casinos in Nepal still haven’t caught up on outstanding royalties. Both are being shut down by the government. A collection of casinos in Nepal have racked up a bill worth around $16.5 million in unpaid royalties, according to the Kathmandu Post. Some have already closed their doors […]

The post Nepal Closes Two Casinos After Racking Up Millions in Unpaid Licenses and Royalties appeared first on Casino.org.

SpiceJet Offers Rs 600 Crore for Settlement of the Dispute With Its Former Owner Kalanithi Maran

India’s low-cost airline SpiceJet has offered to pay Rs 600 crore to settle the dispute with its former owner Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways. Supreme Court, at which is the case is currently in progress, advised Maran to consider SpiceJet’s […]

Supreme Court Stays the Order to Wind-Up SpiceJet Operations for Three Weeks

In an interim relief to the budget-career SpiceJet, the Supreme Court has granted three weeks to resolve its financial dispute with Swiss firm Credit Suisse AG. The Court also stayed the verdict of Madras High Court granting permission to wind […]

Fed. Circ. Judge Knocks Justices’ Assignor Estoppel Ruling

A Federal Circuit judge said Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court justices created "a trap for the unwary" by keeping alive a doctrine barring inventors from challenging the validity of their own patents and narrowing when it can be applied, while weighing a remand order from the high court in a patent validity dispute between Minerva and Hologic.
Tag Template - News Hub PRO

Justices Asked To Mull Circuit Split On Lanham Act’s Reach

Hetronic Germany GmbH is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a $113 million trademark fight over radio control systems against a former U.S. partner, in a case that may address for the first time whether the Lanham Act's scope extends outside the U.S.

Campbell’s Foe Seeks Do-Over Of PTAB Win Under Arthrex

A company suing Campbell Soup Co. over allegedly using knock-off soup can dispensers is taking its patent case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing in a petition that last year's landmark Arthrex decision means its initial win at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was unconstitutional and should never have faced a federal appeals court.

Qualcomm Says Leahy Is Wrong, Apple Can’t Appeal Loss

Qualcomm has told the U.S. Supreme Court that Apple, and an amicus brief supporting it from Sen. Patrick Leahy, misstated the law on appellate standing when arguing that Apple was improperly prevented from appealing inter partes review decisions upholding two Qualcomm patents.

Mississippi legislators ready to legalize medical marijuana over governor’s veto

Senators passed joints and bags of hemp around the capitol building while debating daily patient limits.

The post Mississippi legislators ready to legalize medical marijuana over governor’s veto appeared first on Leafly.

Madras High Court Stays the Order of Insolvency Against SpiceJet Until January 11

On Thursday, the Madras High Court prolonged an interim stay on the implementation of a single judge’s judgement ordering the insolvency of SpiceJet for non-payment of $24 million to a Switzerland-based stock corporation Credit Suisse AG until January 11. Justices […]

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2021

Here’s wishing all our readers a very happy, safe, and healthy new year! Continuing our annual tradition of recounting the significant developments that impacted the Indian IP landscape in the year that has been, we bring you a round-up of 2021’s developments. This year, we have divided these developments into three categories: a) Top 10 IP Judgments/Orders (Topicality/Impact) b) Top 10 IP Judgments/Orders (Jurisprudence/Legal Lucidity) and c) Top 10 Other IP Developments The decisions in the first category, i.e., Top 10...
Tag Template - News Hub PRO

Recent articles