Darunavir in Swedish Preliminary Injunction Proceedings

Recently, the Paris High Court decided for a preliminary injunction against the commercialisation of Darunavir by Sandoz, the SPC Blog report can be found here. In parallel proceedings, the Swedish Patent and Market Appeal Court has come to the opposite conclusion, and found that that the contested SPC would most likely be found invalid and thus denied a request for a preliminary injunction. Hampus Rystedt from Zacco has kindly provided the following summary of the case.

The first instance Patent and Market Court, which is quite experienced in SPC appeals originating from the examination at the Swedish Patent Office, granted a preliminary injunction. The Patent and Market Appeal Court however reversed the decision. The PMAC specifically referenced the Teva case from the CJEU (C-121/17; EU:C:2018:585) and found that the criteria set out in Teva should be applied when assessing the plausibility that an SPC will be considered valid. The PMAC finds that darunavir is not specifically identified in the claims, and indeed appears to have been first synthesized only after the priority date. The PMAC therefore finds that it is likely that the SPC will be considered invalid in the main proceedings and that a preliminary injunction cannot be granted.

Of interest to note is that the decision in PMAC was split 3 to 2, with the chairwoman and the only chemical expert dissenting. The two dissenting judges found that the case law is not clear on how Art 3(a) of 469/2009 should be applied when the basic patent defines the invention by means of a Markush-formula. These judges were thus of the opinion that it had not been sufficiently shown that the SPC would likely be held invalid, and that the preliminary injunction granted by the lower court should be upheld.

The main proceedings will now continue in the first instance court.

Many thanks Hampus!

Germany - District Court lifts several ex-parte preliminary injunctions granted for Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp.

Recently, the District Court in Düsseldorf lifted several ex-parte preliminary injunctions granted for Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. (MSD) against various generic companies. The District Court’s decision in German language can be found (HERE) as well as the English translation thereof (HERE). Phillip Rektorschek (Taylor Wessing) and Derk Vos (Maiwald), who acted i.a. for Hexal AG and 1A Pharma, have provided the following summary on the case: 

"Earlier this year MSD, based on SPC DE 12 2004 000 026.1, applied for preliminary injunctions against eight generic companies in order to prevent market entry of generic versions of MSD’s cholersterol-lowering combination product Inegy®. Inegy® is a fixed dose combination of the actives ingredients ezetimibe and simvastatin. While, the present SPC in question, DE 12 2004 000 026.1 is directed to a product covering ezetimibe or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof in combination with simvastatin, MSD had also held an earlier SPC in Germany on the very same basic patent EP 1 720 599 B1, which covered the mono-product of ezetimibe (tradename EZETROL®), which expired in April 2018. 

In May 2018 the District Court in Düsseldorf granted MSD ex-parte preliminary injunctions against the generic companies.  

Seven of these generic companies appealed against the preliminary injunction granted by the District Court. It was argued that the SPC-in-suit is invalid and was granted contrary to the requirements of Art. 3 a), 3 c) and 3 d) SPC-Regulation. 

With the decision of 1 October, 2018, these seven injunctions have now been lifted. According to the District Court’s assessment, the validity of SPC DE 12 2004 000 026.1 is not sufficiently secured and the SPC is expected to be invalidated. 

In the District Court’s opinion, the requirements of Art. 3 a) SPC-Regulation were fulfilled for the combination product in question, since the combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin was mentioned in the claims as well as in the specification of the basic patent. Further, the skilled person would have known from the prior art that simvastatin would also be a suitable drug for reduction of cholesterol. Based on the fact that ezetimibe and simvastatin would act via a different mechanisms of action, the skilled person would expect achieving an additive effect with the administration of the two active ingredients. 

However, the District Court concluded that the requirements of Art. 3 c) SPC-Regulations were not fulfilled for the product-in-suit. 

Contrary to MSD’s submission, ezetimibe would be the sole subject matter of the invention protected in the basic patent in an SPC specific meaning. The combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin would not be the core of the technical teaching of the basic patent and should therefore not be awarded a separate SPC. 

The Court made clear that according to their interpretation of the CJEU’s case law, an SPC should be granted for compensating for the duration of the authorization procedure but not for the effort/cost associated with the authorization procedure. Moreover, the extension of protection should only be granted once for a product which may be understood as an active ingredient or combination of active ingredients in the narrower meaning. This approach may lead to situations wherein a combination of active ingredients is in fact considered to be protected in the meaning of Art. 3 a) SPC-Regulaiton, but in view of Art. 3 c) SPC-Regulation there should only be awarded an SPC if a product represents the core inventive advance of the basic patent at its priority date. 

This requirement was considered not to be fulfilled in the present case since the combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin is not the core inventive advance of the basic patent, but only ezetimibe. According to the District Court, the technical contribution for which the SPC should be rewarded must represent the actual technical teaching of the basic patent. In particular for combination preparations, the combination must address a specific problem in the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a disease, for which the technical solution must be different from the solution provided by the mono product.In the District Court’s opinion not only a synergism of the two actives would qualify for such a different effect but also a reduction of side effects or the like, under the condition that this effect is different from the one observed for the mono-product. However, for the difference relied upon, there must be disclosure in the basic patent at the priority date. Referring to the recent decision C-121/17 – Teva, the District Court stated that it is not sufficient that such differences or effects were only revealed during the authorization procedure. In such a case the aim of the Regulation, namely to compensate for the duration of the authorization procedure would not be fulfilled. 

The District Court further stated that also the other effects relied upon by the Claimant were not disclosed in the basic patent and have been classified as “surprising” by the Claimant itself. It is therefore apparent, that the effect relied upon by the Claimant are based on additional insight gained only during the authorization procedure, but are not disclosed in the basic patent. 

Moreover, in the Court’s view the fact that the majority of the relevant clinical studies for the marketing authorization of the combination product were already conducted for the authorization of the mono-product aggrevates the situation. Only marginal additional data on the effectiveness were provided with the marketing authorization for the combination product, which, however, did not provide any additional gain in knowledge in view of the data contained in the earlier authorization of the mono-product Ezetrol®.
According to the District Court, the mere fact that the combination is provided as a “fixed dose” cannot chance the situation, since it was known to the skilled person at the priority date that patient compliance is improved by fixed dose preparations. In addition, there is no indication that the provision of the fixed dose preparation was associated with any difficulties for the skilled person. 

Summarizing, the District Court found that the SPC was granted contravening the requirements of Art. 3 c) SPC-Regulation and thus the validity of the SPC is not secured and therefore the preliminary injunctions had to be revoked."

MSD has filed an appeal against the first instance decision.

Many thanks to Derk Vos and Philip Rektorschek!

Denmark - Gilead successfully enforces its SPC for Truvada

Last year, the SPC Blog reported (here) the decision of the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court not to grant a preliminary injunction against Accord Healthcare Limited on the basis of Gilead's SPC for the combination of tenofovir disoproxil (as fumarate) and emtricitabine.

On 7 March 2018, the Eastern High Court in Denmark overturned this decision and granted the preliminary injunction against Accord.

Mikkel Vittrup and Jeppe Brinck-Jensen at Plesner (who assisted Gilead in this case) have kindly provided the summary below of the Eastern High Court's decision.

The Eastern High Court (the court of appeal) in Denmark has granted a preliminary injunction against Accord Healthcare Limited on the basis of Gilead's Danish SPC for TRUVADA®, overturning the first instance decision of the Maritime and Commercial High Court. The Eastern High Court did not accept that Accord had proven that Gilead's SPC was invalid. Furthermore, it found that the SPC was infringed even though the title of the SPC mentioned a specific salt of the active ingredient tenofovir disoproxil, and Accord's product was not sold as such a salt.  

In relation to validity of the SPC, the question was whether the active ingredient emtricitabine was specified in the wording of claim 27 of the basic patent by the wording "other therapeutic ingredients", for the purposes of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation. Gilead's SPC is for the combination of active ingredients tenofovir disoproxil and emtricitabine, and it was not in dispute that tenofovir disoproxil is explicitly named in the claims of the basic patent. 

Accord argued that claim 27 did not relate implicitly, but necessarily and specifically, to the combination of tenofovir disoproxil and emtricitabine, and therefore that the SPC did not meet the requirements of Article 3(a) as interpreted by the CJEU in Eli Lilly (Case C-493/12). At first instance, the Maritime and Commercial High Court agreed with Accord.  

The Eastern High Court did not agree.  

It stated, referring to the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC and the Eli Lilly decision, that the claims of the basic patent - including in relation to the question of which active ingredients are covered by the claims - should be interpreted in the light of the common general knowledge of the skilled person. 

The Eastern High Court referred to a declaration and oral testimony of Gilead's expert (a Danish HIV clinician) and found that the skilled person at the priority date of the basic patent (July 1996) would have understood "other therapeutic ingredients" as compounds contributing to antiviral activity, including in particular for the treatment of HIV, and therefore that the skilled person would think of a combination of tenofovir disoproxil with another NRTI, a NNRTI or a protease inhibitor. The Eastern High Court concluded that the term "other therapeutic ingredients" in claim 27 only concerned a limited number of compounds.  

Consequently, the Eastern High Court found that it could not be rejected with the sufficient degree of certainty that claim 27 implicitly, but necessarily and specifically also related to emtricitabine. 

The Eastern High Court also gave weight to the existing doubt as to the interpretation of Article 3(a), in particular in view of the pending referral to the CJEU (Case C-121/17).
The Eastern High Court's decision - overturning the first instance decision from the Maritime and Commercial High Court - also confirms the well-established Danish case law according to which a preliminary injunction will rarely be rejected on the basis of alleged invalidity of the asserted IP rights.  

In relation to infringement, the High Court concluded that Gilead had rendered it probable that the fumaric acid salt and the free base of tenofovir disoproxil should be considered the same active ingredient within the meaning of the SPC Regulation. Consequently, Gilead's SPC was infringed by a combination product containing the free base of tenofovir disoproxil, even though the title of the SPC mentioned tenofovir disoproxil as a fumaric acid salt. 

Antwerp court stops infringement of valsartan/HCTZ SPC based on patent claiming valsartan alone

From Philippe de Jong (Altius, Brussels) comes details of a fascinating recent decision from the Antwerp Court of Appeal in a case concerning SPCs for combination products. The case is Novartis v Teva, case 2010/RK/456, decided on 9 February 2011. Explains Philippe:

"The Antwerp Court of Appeal ordered Teva not to launch prematurely a generic version of Novartis’ blockbuster drug Co-Diovan. The product which Teva intended to launch on 12 February 2011 – the expiry date of Novartis’ basic patent for valsartan (EP 443 983 B1) – contained, like Co-Diovan, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide or ‘HCTZ’ as its active ingredients. However, this combination of valsartan and HCTZ is protected until 25 September 2012 by a Belgian SPC. 

Teva launched a nullity action against this SPC before the Antwerp Commercial Court and also contested its prima facie validity in the summary proceedings which Novartis subsequently brought against Teva. 

The main argument raised by Teva in support of its nullity allegations was that the product valsartan+HCTZ was not protected by the basic patent within the meaning of Article 3(a) of SPC Regulation 469/2009 because the combination of valsartan and HCTZ was not specifically disclosed in the claims of the basic patent. Novartis argued that a product is protected by a patent if it infringes that patent. In view of the absolute protection for valsartan under the basic patent, any medicinal product containing valsartan, whether alone or in combination with other active ingredients, would infringe and thus be “protected by” the basic patent. 

The Court of Appeal followed Novartis’ reasoning, referring to the application of the “infringement test” in a number of European countries. The fact that in other countries a different test was applied could not affect the prima facie validity of the SPC. Particularly in view of the various pending references to the ECJ from the English courts about the correctness of this different test, the Court of Appeal concluded that the final word on which test to apply should be left for the full trial before the Antwerp Commercial Court, which will take place in April 2011. The preliminary injunction was therefore granted until a decision in the case on the merits is issued or until 31 May 2011, whichever is earlier".

Philippe has kindly provided both the Flemish original and an English translation.