The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM), a trade association that represents biosimilar and generic drug makers, has filed an amicus brief in support of Mylan, Teva, and Akorn in their inter partes review (IPR) proceeding against Allergan, owner of embattled patents covering cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis).
The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM), a trade association that represents biosimilar and generic drug makers, has filed an amicus brief in support of Mylan, Teva, and Akorn in their inter partes review (IPR) proceeding against Allergan, owner of embattled patents covering cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis).
In September 2017, the Ireland-based Allergan announced that it had transferred its patents for the blockbuster dry-eye drug to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, which agreed to invoke sovereign immunity from IPR proceedings in exchange for regular royalties on Restasis’ sales. While an October 2017 district court ruling deemed the patents in question invalid on the basis of obviousness, the IPR challenge is still pending, and the US Patent and Trade Mark Office allowed interested parties to file amicus curiae briefs until December 1, 2017 as the legal system grapples with the implications of Allergan’s patent protection strategy.
In its brief, AAM sides with generic drug developers challenging Allergan’s patents, and argues in favor of the patents being subject to IPR. First, says AAM’s brief, IPRs “do not offend the dignity of sovereign tribal entities” because they do not allow private parties to subject sovereign entities to a coercive process, but instead allow a federal agency to review a patent that it has issued. Second, AAM holds that the courts have in other cases refused to dismiss actions when private parties attempt to “frustrate judicial adjudication of property rights” by conveying property to tribal entities. Finally, argues AAM, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has the right to complete its review irrespective of the company’s transfer of patent to the Tribe, as “nothing in the governing statutes or regulations precludes the [PTAB] from completing its resolution of an instituted IPR in this situation.”
According to the brief, “…allowing a drug company patent owner to force an IPR to halt on the eve of an IPR hearing, by paying tens of millions of dollars to rent tribal immunity, would reward bad-faith behavior. It would also provide other holders of weak but extremely profitable patents with a roadmap for shielding their patents from review while wasting the valuable resources of their competitors and the [PTAB].”
AAM’s senior vice president and general counsel Jeff Francer told The Center for Biosimilars® in an e-mail that “Abuse of the patent system by some brand name pharmaceutical companies is harming patients by denying access to affordable medicines. AAM believes it is important for the US Patent and Trademark Office to see through such schemes and ensure that granted patents are truly innovative. This is what Congress designed the (IPR) process to accomplish.”
Webinar Addresses Solutions to Improve Adalimumab Biosimilar Uptake
March 18th 2024Government policies, including those related to prescribing incentives and interchangeability, need to be reworked to encourage biosimilar adoption and create meaningful savings for health systems, according to speakers at a recent webinar.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
BioRationality: EMA Announces Readiness to Waive Comparative Efficacy Studies of Biosimilars
March 4th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, takes a look at the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) announcement that it will investigate whether comparative efficacy tests should be needed for a biosimilar to receive regulatory approval.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
Cardinal Health Report Showcases Biosimilar Growth, Provider and Payer Evolution, and More
February 29th 2024In its annual biosimilars report, Cardinal Health provided updates on how provider acceptance growth, evolving payer dynamics, and the growing pipeline for biosimilars will shape the biosimilar landscape over the next 5 years.
The Underlying Economics of Unbranded Biologics
February 26th 2024Unbranded biologics primarily serve to uphold inflated list prices, typically prompted by loss of exclusivity, aiming to safeguard market share and counter biosimilar competition, although forthcoming legislative changes targeting high drug costs could lessen their significance moving forward.