Second Medical Use Patents and Infringement Issues
This content discusses second medical use patents, infringement challenges, and competing policy considerations in the pharmaceutical industry. It analyzes the delicate balance between incentivizing innovation and ensuring public access to effective treatments. Legal contexts, patent infringement definitions, and statutory provisions are explored along with the complexities faced by manufacturers, clinicians, and patients. The discussion delves into the nuances of protecting newly patented uses while allowing for generic drug availability for non-patented purposes.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Intention, off Intention, off- -label prescriptions label prescriptions and new use patents after and new use patents after Warner Warner- -Lambert Lambert Kathryn Pickard Barrister 11 South Square
Second medical use claims Second medical use claims Swiss-form claims: Use of X for the preparation of a pharmaceutical for treating Y EPC 2000 claims: Product X for the treatment of Y
Manufacturer Manufacturer Distributor Distributor Pharmacist Prescription Clinician Patient Generic skinny-label product Branded full-label product
The problem The problem The choice lies between defining infringement so widely that manufacturers will be dissuaded from producing generic drugs even to fulfil the original (no longer patented) use, and defining it so narrowly that patentees are inadequately protected from the invasion of their newly patented second use by generic manufacturers Per Lord Briggs, 123
Competing policy considerations Competing policy considerations 1. Provide reasonable protection to the second medical use patentee to reward and incentivise research 2. Allow the public the benefit of the product for its original therapeutic use once the patent covering that original use has expired 3. Provide reasonable legal certainty for those engaged in the manufacture, marketing and prescribing of generic drug for the non-patented use that their conduct is lawful 4. Protect the autonomy of clinical judgments
Legal Context Legal Context A person infringes a patent for an invention if, without the consent of the proprietor, he: where the invention is a product, makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses, or imports the product or keeps it for those purposes (s.60(1)(a)) where the invention is a process, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports any product obtained directly by means of that process or keeps any such product whether for disposal or otherwise (s.60(1)(c))
Statutory provision = strict liability Product claims s.60(1)(a) - makes - disposes of -offers to dispose of - uses - imports - keeps Process claims s.60(1)(c) - disposes of - offers to dispose of - uses - imports - keeps Claim construction = possibility of mental element Swiss-form claim EPC 2000 claim Use of X for the preparation of a pharmaceutical for treating Y Product X forthe treatment of Y
What does for mean? What does for mean? intended for i.e. subjective intention where it is known or reasonably foreseeable that some of the medicine will be used for i.e. reasonable foreseeability some of the medicine will be intentionally used for where the manufacturer has not taken all reasonable steps to prevent use for the patented treatment occurring where from its outward appearance it can objectively be said to be for i.e. outward appearance no mens rea at all
Reasonable foreseeability Reasonable foreseeability The foreseeability test has the merit of being objective, but there is in my view little else to commend it Per Lord Sumption, 79 All product infringes Flexible remedy regime? Possibility of negating if all reasonable steps taken to prevent use for patented indication?
Subjective intention Subjective intention It seems unsatisfactory that patent infringement should depend on investigation of a subjective intention, internal to the manufacturer Per Lord Mance, 204 Is manufacturer targeting the market for patented or non-patented use? Reflects purpose of Swiss-form claim Balances rights of patentee against those of generic manufacturer Commercial certainty for third parties? Evidential problems?
Outward appearance Outward appearance the intention of the manufacturer is irrelevant to the question of infringement in a purpose-limited process claim, the badge of purpose is the physical characteristics of the product as it emerges from the relevant process Per Lord Sumption, 83-84 Objective test Commercial certainty to manufacturer and third parties dealing in product Sufficient protection for patentee? Charade?
Further issues Further issues How should outward appearance test be applied? What, if anything, must manufacturer do to make clear that permitted use is limited? In what, if any, circumstances is it legitimate to look at factors external to the product? What should the test for EPC 2000 claims be?
