On July 20, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in the case of the St Regis Mohawk Tribe v Mylan Pharmaceuticals that sovereign immunity does not extend to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
On July 20, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in the case of the St Regis Mohawk Tribe v Mylan Pharmaceuticals that sovereign immunity does not extend to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
The ruling arose from a dispute in which drug maker Allergan, seeking to shield its patents for the dry-eye drug Restasis from IPR challenges from rival drug makers who hoped to develop generic products, transferred its patents covering Restasis to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. The tribe agreed to invoke sovereign immunity against IPRs in exchange for a bulk payment of $13.75 million and an additional $15 million per year in royalties on drug sales.
The gambit drew wide criticism, with representatives of the generics industry calling it “bad-faith behavior,” and United States senators calling for investigations into the matter and introducing a legislative solution to prohibit such patent transfers in the future.
While the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board previously decided that the tribe could not claim sovereign immunity in this case, Allergan and the tribe appealed that ruling.
In its newly issued decision in the appeal, affirming the prior ruling, the court explained that, while the Tribe argued that its immunity extended to IPRs because they are proceedings between private parties, the court holds that IPRs are more similar to agency enforcement actions—to which sovereign immunity does not apply—than they are to civil suits.
The decision cited recent Supreme Court ruling in the Oil States case, in which the court emphasized the government’s “central role” in IPR proceedings. The appellate court also emphasizes the fact that IPR proceedings have substantial differences from civil proceedings, and once an IPR has been instituted, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may continue a review even if a petitioner chooses not to participate; “this reinforces the view that IPR is an act by the agency in reconsidering its own grant of a public franchise,” wrote the court.
Finally, “the Director’s important role as a gatekeeper and the Board’s authority to proceed in the absence of the parties convinces us that the [United States Patent and Trademark Office] is acting as the United States in its role as a superior sovereign to reconsider a prior administrative grant and protect the public interest in keeping patent monopolies ‘within their legitimate scope,’” according to the decision.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
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.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Interchangeability
November 14th 2024Part 3 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week, penned by Dracey Poore, director of biosimilars at Cardinal Health, explores the critical topic of interchangeability, examining its role in shaping biosimilar adoption and the broader implications for accessibility.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Payer and PBM Policies
November 13th 2024Part 2 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week dives into the complexities of payer and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) policies, how they impact biosimilar accessibility, and how addressing these issues may look under a second Trump term.