Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Amgen v. Hoffman-La Roche: Checking the Wrong Box Could Prove Costly for Amgen

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Amgen v. Hoffman-La Roche, an important case arising out of Amgen’s efforts to block Roche from entering the US market with a competing version of recombinant erythropoietin. Amgen currently sells two recombinant versions of erythropoietin, EPOGEN and ARENESP, and Roche is attempting to enter the market with a PEGylated version of erythropoietin (EPO) under the trade name MIRCERA. The case should be of particular interest to those following the current debate over proposed follow-on biologic legislation, as the MIRCERA product is arguably biosimilar to Amgen's products and would thus qualify as a follow-on biologic. In any event, the case illustrates many of the challenges that biologic innovators will face when attempting to use patents to maintain market exclusivity if follow-on biologic legislation is enacted.

There are many issues at play in the case, but the questions of infringement and obviousness-type double patent are two of the most interesting. Essentially, much of Roche's non-infringement argument is based on its assertion that PEGylation results in substantial structural and functional changes to the protein backbone that render MIRCERA a distinct and non-infringing molecule. Roche has generally lost on this issue. The obviousness-type double patent argument arises out of Roche's contention that Amgen impermissibly obtained multiple patents claiming essentially the same invention, resulting in an undue extension of the effective patent term. Based on a single priority application filed in 1983, Amgen received at least seven patents, one of which has expired (the core erythropoietin gene patent successfully asserted in Amgen v. Chugai (decided by the Federal Circuit in 1991), and five of which were asserted in this action against Roche.

According to my calculations, the last of these patents to expire will be in 2016 (5,955,422), 33 years after the initial filing date and 27 years after EPOGEN was first approved for sale in the US. Note that this sort of de facto patent term extension is not available for patent applications filed after June of 1995, which are limited to a 20 year term after the initial filing date, plus possible extensions due to delays in seeking FDA approval not to exceed 14 years from the date of initial approval of the product.

Here are a few highlights.

Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

35 USC 121 provides a safe harbor that “protects a divisional application, the original application, or any patent issued on either of them from validity challenges based on a patent issuing application subjected to a restriction requirement or on an application filed as a result of a restriction requirement.” The district court found Amgen’s two product patents claiming recombinant erythropoietin therapeutics both arose out of divisional applications, and hence were shielded from invalidation based on obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). The Federal Circuit vacated this judgment, based on its conclusion that the two patents arose out of continuation applications, not divisional applications, and for that reason the Section 121 safe harbor did not apply.

The Federal Circuit seemed to acknowledge that the two product patents arose out of patent applications that satisfied the definition of "divisional application" provided in the Manual of the Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP 201.06):

A later application for an independent or distinct invention, carved out of a pending application and disclosing and claiming only subject matter disclosed in the earlier or parent application, is known as a divisional application or "division."

However, when Amgen filed the applications which led to the product patents, it identified them as continuation applications rather than divisional applications, and checked the continuation application box on the form it submitted to the PTO, and the Federal Circuit held that because Amgen had designated the applications as continuations they would be held to this designation, and thus could not take advantage of a safe harbor available only to divisional applications.

Note that divisional applications are a species of continuation application, so Amgen was correct in identifying the application as a continuation when it was filed. However, it is clear in retrospect that they should have identified it as a divisional application. I think the applications clearly qualified as divisionals under the MPEP definition, a definition which comports with the conventional understanding of the term divisional at that time. More recently, particularly with respect to the proposed continuation rules currently being challenged in Tafas v. Dudas, the PTO has taken to using the term divisional any more narrow sense, limited to applications containing claims that were presented in the initial application but canceled in order to comply with a restriction requirement. In the 1990s when Amgen filed its continuation/divisional applications, I think it could easily have identified the applications as divisionals, and checked the divisional box on the form, and the PTO would not have called them on it. If they had, perhaps the Federal Circuit would have affirmed the district court in its judgment that the patents were shielded from ODP challenge by section 121.

On remand, the district court will have to determine whether the products claimed in the Amgen patents are patently distinct from process claims issued in other related Amgen patents. This will come down to the question of whether at the time the product applications were filed (1993 and 1995) there were alternative processes (not covered by Amgen's process patents) for making the claimed product. In other words, Amgen will likely have to argue for a narrow interpretation of its process patents. This might prove difficult - in the past, Amgen has successfully argued for a broad interpretation of the process patents to encompass, e.g., gene activation technology (Amgen v. Hoechst Marrion Roussel) (as discussed in more detail here). It is unclear whether in 1993 or 1995 alternative processes for producing recombinant erythropoietin were available that would not be encompassed by Amgen's process patents, if those process patents are interpreted as broadly as they have been in litigations.

The issue of ODP could be significant, particular with respect to 5,955,422, the last of the patents in the family to issue. If this patent were to be invalidated on remand, it would effectively reduce Amgen's period of de facto patent exclusivity.

Product-by-process claims

Normally, one of the mantras of patent law is “that which anticipates if earlier will literally infringe if later.” However, the Federal Circuit held that with respect to product-by-process claims:

[T]hat which anticipates if earlier does not necessarily infringe if later. That is because a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim, but an accused product made by a different process cannot infringe a product-by-process claim. Similarly, that which infringes if later does not necessarily anticipate if earlier. That is because an accused product may need each limitation in a claim, but not possess features imparted by a process limitation that might distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.

An interesting asymmetry in the law, which resulted in the following conclusion:

To prove infringement, Amgen had to show that MIRCERA comprises EPO made recombinantly, which the Court concluded it did. Importantly, Amgen was not required to show that MIRCERA was also structurally and functionally different than urinary EPO. In other words, for validity, the court correctly required a source limitations to impart novelty onto EPO but it did not require [prior art EPO purified from urine] to meet the source limitations; for infringement, the court correctly required MIRCERA to satisfy the source limitations, but did not require MIRCERA to differ from urinary EPO.

Infringement

Roche argued that MIRCERA is not covered by Amgen's product claims because PEGylation (attachment of PEG polymers to the EPO polypeptide backbone) results in substantial structural changes to the molecule that bring it outside the scope of the claim, including loss of a hydrogen atom and a substantial increase in molecular weight. The district court rejected this argument, finding infringement, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, “[b]ecause MIRCERA embodies the human EPO and source limitations of the asserted claims." The court cited nonchemical caselaw for the proposition that “modification by mere addition of elements cannot negate infringement,” and found that this rule applied to PEGylation of EPO. Apparently, so long as the EPO polypeptide backbone is substantially present, any post-translational modification will still be encompassed by the claim. This is consistent with conventional understanding of protein and DNA claims. However, with respect to other chemical compounds (such as small molecule drugs) one is generally not permitted to disclose a molecule backbone and then claim all molecules comprising that backbone, and I wonder if this apparent dichotomy will at some point be addressed. After all, it seems inconsistent with statements and other Federal Circuit decisions to the effect that claims directed to DNA and protein molecules should be treated just like any other chemical compound claim.

Amgen also prevailed on the issue of whether importation of MIRCERA violates 35 USC 271(g). Section 271(g) essentially allows a patent owner to block importation of a product made by a process patented in the US, so long as the product has not been “materially changed by subsequent processes.” Roche argued that PEGylation of EPO results in substantial structural and functional changes relevant to the recombinant EPO produced by the patented processes, thus satisfying the “materially changed” caveat. However, the Federal Circuit held that, “on this record, we think there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the structural and functional differences between MIRCERA and EPO recited in the process claims were not material.” The Federal Circuit provided little explanation for this conclusion, beyond its finding that "MIRCERA and human EPO stimulate erythropoiesis similarly."

4 comments:

IP observer said...

The MPEP definition of divisional application is not the same as the statutory definition, and the statutory definition governs. I think it is clear to anyone who takes the time to review the file histories, the compounds at issue, and the claims that the second generation of Amgen patents should have expired with the first. The patent act was never intended to provide someone with a monopoly for 33 years, even under the old law where patent term ran 17 years from the issue date.

Web Solutions said...

I am still looking forward for more information about the topic!

Jamie M. - www.patentattorneyindex.com said...

Any news regarding the consequences of this case?

otr214425 said...

otr214425@gmail.comINTERNATIONAL CONCEPT OF WORK FROM HOME
Work from home theory is fast gaining popularity because of the freedom and flexibility that comes with it. Since one is not bound by fixed working hours, they can schedule their work at the time when they feel most productive and convenient to them. Women & Men benefit a lot from this concept of work since they can balance their home and work perfectly. People mostly find that in this situation, their productivity is higher and stress levels lower. Those who like isolation and a tranquil work environment also tend to prefer this way of working. Today, with the kind of communication networks available, millions of people worldwide are considering this option.

Women & Men who want to be independent but cannot afford to leave their responsibilities at home aside will benefit a lot from this concept of work. It makes it easier to maintain a healthy balance between home and work. The family doesn't get neglected and you can get your work done too. You can thus effectively juggle home responsibilities with your career. Working from home is definitely a viable option but it also needs a lot of hard work and discipline. You have to make a time schedule for yourself and stick to it. There will be a time frame of course for any job you take up and you have to fulfill that project within that time frame.

There are many things that can be done working from home. A few of them is listed below that will give you a general idea about the benefits of this concept.

Baby-sitting
This is the most common and highly preferred job that Women & Men like doing. Since in today's competitive world both the parents have to work they need a secure place to leave behind their children who will take care of them and parents can also relax without being worried all the time. In this job you don't require any degree or qualifications. You only have to know how to take care of children. Parents are happy to pay handsome salary and you can also earn a lot without putting too much of an effort.

Nursery
For those who have a garden or an open space at your disposal and are also interested in gardening can go for this method of earning money. If given proper time and efforts nursery business can flourish very well and you will earn handsomely. But just as all jobs establishing it will be a bit difficult but the end results are outstanding.

Freelance
Freelance can be in different wings. Either you can be a freelance reporter or a freelance photographer. You can also do designing or be in the advertising field doing project on your own. Being independent and working independently will depend on your field of work and the availability of its worth in the market. If you like doing jewellery designing you can do that at home totally independently. You can also work on freelancing as a marketing executive working from home. Wanna know more, email us on workfromhome.otr214425@gmail.com and we will send you information on how you can actually work as a marketing freelancer.


Internet related work
This is a very vast field and here sky is the limit. All you need is a computer and Internet facility. Whatever field you are into work at home is perfect match in the software field. You can match your time according to your convenience and complete whatever projects you get. To learn more about how to work from home, contact us today on workfromhome.otr214425@gmail.comand our team will get you started on some excellent work from home projects.


Diet food
Since now a days Women & Men are more conscious of the food that they eat hence they prefer to have homemade low cal food and if you can start supplying low cal food to various offices then it will be a very good source of income and not too much of efforts. You can hire a few ladies who will help you out and this can be a good business.

Thus think over this concept and go ahead.