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”).
Skyrizi Overtakes Humira: “Product Hopping” Leaves Biosimilar Market in Limbo
November 7th 2024For the first time, Skyrizi (risankizumab-rzaa) has replaced Humira (reference adalimumab) as AbbVie’s sales driver, largely due to companies encouraging “product hopping” to avoid competition, creating concerns for the sustainability of the burgeoning adalimumab biosimilar market.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
BioRationality: Should mRNA Copies Be Filed as NDAs or Biosimilars?
November 4th 2024The article by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, argues that the FDA’s classification of future copies of messenger RNA (mRNA) products could be reconsidered, suggesting they might be eligible for new drug applications (NDAs) or a hybrid biosimilar category due to their unique characteristics and increasing prevalence.
Panelists Stress Stakeholder Education to Build Confidence in Biosimilars
October 31st 2024By expanding educational initiatives to clarify biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability, stakeholders can foster trust, improve access, and ensure that biosimilars are widely accepted as high-quality, cost-effective alternatives to originator biologics.
Enhancing Adoption of Infused Biosimilars for a Sustainable Future
October 30th 2024An IQVIA report highlights challenges to the sustainability of infused biosimilars in the US, citing rebate walls and reimbursement policies, and proposes key solutions to enhance adoption and benefits for all stakeholders.