United States: Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange And Purple Book Patent Owners In Developing PTAB Survival Skills

In the last three years, there has been an uptick in the use of inter partes review proceedings by the generic-side of the bio/pharma industry. In light of this recent uptick, Ropes & Gray attorneys explain the practical realities of Orange and Purple Book-related Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, and contrast them with Hatch-Waxman litigations in the same time frame. In this podcast, Scott McKeown, chair of Ropes & Gray's PTAB practice, and Filko Prugo, chair of Ropes & Gray's life sciences intellectual property litigation practice, discuss their insights and experience in these matters as well as how recent changes at the PTAB may affect the biopharmaceutical industry's use of the PTAB.

Transcript:

Scott McKeown: Hello, and thank you for joining us today on this Ropes & Gray podcast. I'm Scott McKeown, chair of the firm's Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB practice, based in our Washington D.C. office. I'm joined today by Filko Prugo, chair of the firm's life sciences intellectual property litigation practice based in our New York office. Today we'll be discussing Orange and Purple Book patents, especially as related to challenges at the PTAB. There's been a lot of controversy surrounding such patents, not the least of which is the new PTAB environment itself. When the legislation was being passed by Congress some years back, the biopharma community was less concerned relative to the tech community in that because these challenges, at least in inter partes review, are limited to patents and printed publications, and biopharma was more concerned with challenges to statutory subject matter, written description and the like. The biopharma community did not see proceedings such as inter partes review or IPR as being a threat, but here we are in 2018 and the litigation landscape has changed for biopharma just as it has changed for the tech community. In other words, biopharma is finding itself facing PTAB challenges, and dealing with these expedited and effective challenges in a way that they had not anticipated. So Filko, I wonder if you could shed a little light on the landscape right now at the PTAB for branded pharmaceuticals, generic pharmaceuticals, and the stakeholders that are involved in these Orange and Purple Book disputes. What is going on at the PTAB and what have you found that's been somewhat surprising or contrary to popular opinion?

Filko Prugo: I think when the new proceedings came to be, initially generic pharmaceutical companies were hesitant to utilize them, and what we've seen over the past three years is an uptick in the use of these proceedings by generic pharmaceutical companies. And there was certainly initially an impression that PTAB and PTAB proceedings were very unfavorable to the biopharmaceutical industry as a whole, certainly from the innovator side. So looking at what the Patent Office has done and our own experience and our own data, indeed we see that the results aren't nearly as fatalistic as perhaps the initial impressions of the industry were. So we looked at Orange and Purple Book-related PTAB proceedings filed since inception of the PTAB to May 1, 2018 and we also looked at every validity decision in the Hatch-Waxman case in a federal district court proceeding between January 1, 2013 and May 1, 2018 – and the idea here, of course, being let's take exactly the same time frame, right? So inception of PTAB to May of this year, and within that same time frame, how have these patents fared in Hatch-Waxman district court litigation? And what we found surprisingly, is that in both district court and PTAB proceedings, about 25% of the time all the patent claims were found to be invalid – and that's important and that indicates to us that indeed, the district court and the PTAB are invalidating these patents at roughly the same rate. And it's important here to tease out an assumption that we're making – we're assuming here that the petitioner is challenging claims that subject it to infringement, and has determined that PTAB is indeed the best forum. And that's important because that tells us that if one patent survives a PTAB, that the patent owner is likely to be able to get the district court, in turn, using that one claim, to delay FDA approval of the generic product. And so much of our study is directed towards determining how often one claim survives a PTAB challenge.

Scott McKeown: Filko, let me just stop you there, because you said something that that I think is interesting for the listeners, in that a PTAB challenge is effective roughly 25% of the time, as is a district court proceeding. But the real story here seems to be the speed at which the PTAB proceeding can be concluded and the relatively lower cost as compared to a district court proceeding. So it seems as though the real challenge here for long-term stakeholders is the shakeup in the landscape and what that means on the business side of the patent business. Can you comment on that a little bit?

Filko Prugo: Thank you, Scott. Let me make two points. First of all, when we look at the rate at which all claims in a given patent are invalidated, and we see that that rate is roughly 25% at PTAB and 25% at the district court level, we do need to keep one thing in mind, and I do believe this has been noted by others as well. The PTAB has one weapon in its arsenal and the district court has multiple weapons to invalidate a patent, and we didn't distinguish between the weapons used at the district court level. And so indeed there is an argument from a biopharmaceutical patent owner perspective that although those numbers are numerically very similar, that PTAB is an unfriendly forum because essentially with one weapon, they're knocking out the same percentage of patents as a district court does with multiple weapons. So that's the first point, I think, that does need to be made. The second, certainly from a generic pharmaceutical business perspective, the PTAB is a wonderful forum. It is, as you've noted, Scott, it is quick and it is a lot cheaper. The counter that you hear from the biopharmaceutical patent owner perspective is that there are two major problems with the forum. One: the broadest reasonable construction – and that, of course, is currently being addressed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. They have a new proposed rule that would change that claim construction standard to the Phillips standard and I think that assuage some concerns that patent owners in the biopharmaceutical industry have. However, I've heard it discussed amongst clients and at conferences that more important than the broadest reasonable construction is the burden. And what patent owners have struggled with in the biopharmaceutical space greatly is the lower burden of proof required before PTAB. And so the combination of the lower burden of proof and a relatively high rate of invalidation using one weapon still has, I would argue, and what I've heard and seen in the space, still has patent owners in the biopharmaceutical space up in arms.

Scott McKeown: Let me ask one follow-up on the change to the Phillips standard because this has been universally applauded by patent owners, but is this a change that will move the needle on the biopharma side in the same way that it's expected to move the needle, or at least argued to move the needle, on the tech side? And secondarily, on the statutory side, as you pointed out, Filko, there is a lower burden of proof at the PTAB, the preponderance of the evidence as compared to the clear and convincing standard, in the district court. And we've seen some, we'll call them speculators, that have watched district court litigation and have seen some prior art fail under the clear and convincing standard, and then come into the PTAB and try to leverage that very same prior art, whether it's to influence the stock market and to attack some small companies that have a limited number of very important patents. So if you could just give me a little bit of insight on what the impact of Phillips is expected to be, and then secondarily what, if anything, the agency or Congress is doing to maybe change some of these statutory standards, if not for anything else but to discourage bad actors from leveraging the PTAB.

Filko Prugo: In terms of claim construction, it seems to me that changing the standard to the Phillips standard probably won't have that much of an impact when we look at compound patents or formulation patents, but where it might have a major impact is in terms of method-of-treatment patents and that's an interesting thing to think about for a minute. When you look at the data that we've presented in our study, you can see that there is, of the three types of patents, the highest institution rate for method-of-treatment patents, and indeed, method-of-treatment patents also have the highest rate of invalidation – and so that, to many, including myself, was quite surprising. Indeed, the conventional wisdom is that formulation patents are the weaker of the two types of patents, and I think a change to the Phillips construction may indeed change the rate of invalidation and/or institution when it comes to method-of-treatment patents. It is with respect to those types of patents and those claims where we start to get into questions of, "Well, what does treatment mean? What is efficacy? What is safety?" Those generalized terms are used in the patent claims, and typically in a district court litigation there will be a fight over how narrowly construed those types of terms should be read. And indeed, if we change from broadest reasonable interpretation to Phillips, I suspect that we will see those types of battles before the PTAB as well. In terms of what's happening on the statutory front and the burden of proof, what has been pending for a number of years is the Stronger Patents Act, which attempts to change that burden of proof. But what we have now is the quintessential battle between tech and pharma, and indeed, it's hard to imagine that the Stronger Patents Act will be acted upon in the near future. However, what we have recently introduced is the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018, and that particular set of provisions tries to carve out Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA litigation from PTAB proceedings generally, and indeed deals with the "bad actor problem" of a third party filing a serial petition, and that third party perhaps not having any economic interest in the biopharmaceutical patents, but rather is trying to make some money short-selling. That of course, I think, most observers will agree, is an action that has tapered off in any event, although the legislation itself has been welcomed by the biopharmaceutical industry.

Scott McKeown: Thanks, Filko. That's helpful in understanding the landscape as to where we are, where we're headed. But I'm wondering, before we wrap this up, if you can just give us some insight into those patent owners that have been successful at the PTAB. What do you see these patent owners doing and what in your own experience are the best practices?

Filko Prugo: Well, there are really two things that I've personally seen in my own practice and what the data tells us. One, it's essential – it is absolutely essential for a patent owner to look at the evidence that is presented with respect to whether or not a given piece of "prior art" is indeed a printed publication. Patent owners have been incredibly successful at analyzing the evidence surrounding printed publications and in fact convincing PTAB that a given reference is not a printed publication, and we see that with respect to, for example, drug labels and other FDA-related documents. And number two is the classic, I think, for the biopharmaceutical industry, the classic issue of whether or not the results are predictable. And indeed, where we see patent owners being successful is when they can demonstrate, and demonstrate not just with an expert declaration but demonstrate using prior art, that in fact the results of the claims are not predictable. Patent owners are incredibly successful when they can do those two things together: argue unpredictability and back it up with some references.

Scott McKeown: Thanks so much, Filko, and thanks everyone for listening. Stay tuned for future podcasts on the latest development in IP life sciences space. For more information, please visit our website, www.ropesgray.com, and you can also check out my blog, www.patentspostgrant.com. And of course, if we can help you navigate any of these changes, please don't hesitate to get in touch. In the meantime, we look forward to speaking to you on our next podcast.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions