On January 2, counsel for the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe filed a motion for discovery and requested an oral hearing concerning which judges will sit on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel that oversees its case.
On January 2, counsel for the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe filed a motion for discovery and requested an oral hearing concerning which judges will sit on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel that oversees its case. The move comes after months of controversy over drug maker Allergan’s transfer of its patents for dry-eye drug Restasis to the Tribe in an effort to protect patents from inter partes review (IPR). Under Allergan’s deal, the Tribe invoked sovereign immunity from IPR proceedings in exchange for payment, drawing ire from Congress and industry alike.
Tuesday’s motion suggests that the Tribe may have concerns that backlash against the deal could affect its case; the motion states that the Tribe seeks information on the impartiality of the panel of judges, and on “whether political or third-party pressure has been asserted to reach an outcome inconsistent with the binding Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents.”
The Tribe notes that Congress has taken an interest in the proceedings, and implies that political entities could seek to influence the case’s outcome. It also suggests that the impartiality of the panel could be marred by inclusion of judges such as Chief Judge David Ruschke, “a person who has made prior public comments on the issue of sovereign immunity and this case.” (Ruschke previously ruled in an unrelated case that a sovereign entity had waived its right to immunity by having asserted its patents in a federal district court litigation.)
The motion goes on to claim that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has “a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of this case” because the PTAB collects fees for IPR proceedings.
The motion requests discovery on a number of matters, including the makeup of the merits panel, the dates on which parties were added to the panel, and how the panel’s membership was determined. It also requests disclosure of all ex parte communication that the panel may have had about the case; all communications with Congress, the Executive Branch, or any other parties concerning either the case itself or sovereign immunity in general; information regarding the assignment of judges to other IPR proceedings involving the petitioners; information about the communications of specific judges on the topic of sovereign immunity, and policy determinations covering sovereign immunity.
Finally, the tribe asked for details about the way in which annual bonuses for merits panel members are determined, the annual reviews of all members of the panel, and information on the PTAB’s projections for IPR fees to be collected in 2018 (including the potential for reductions in fees should the Tribe’s sovereign immunity against IPR proceedings be “respected by PTAB”).
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Cordavis Report Outlines Strategies for Biosimilar Development, Access in the US Health Care Market
May 8th 2024Cordavis, a CVS Healthspire company, released a report detailing the current hurdles faced in developing and commercializing biosimilars in the US and highlighting efforts by the organization to enhance access and affordability for these products.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.