API and IP Newsletter
Contents
Patent portfolio of Sun Pharma.
General information.
Biogen’s New Alzheimer’s Drug Beyond Reach for Many Patients.
Indian pharmaceutical industry to reach $60bn in two years.
Intellectual Property.
Ibrutinib decision by Delaware Court
Patent portfolio of Sun Pharma
We study patent portfolios of various companies. We assess the strength of the patent portfolio and try to understand the direction of the company.
Recently we looked at the patent portfolio of Sun Pharma for a period of about one and half years. We mainly considered PCT applications published during this period, which would reflect the active development period on 2018-2019-2020. This lag time is primarily due to time taken for patent publication which is about 18 months from the priority date.
Below are the most interesting applications during this period.
Conclusions:
1. Good mix of NCEs, mAbs and new formulations of molecules in IP portfolio.
2. Now many applications on mere chemical processes.
3. Patent applications are backed by DMF filings and are with clear view of commercialization
4. Plant extracts and new indications of old molecules in own library are also being explored.
5. The company is moving in the direction of NCE and to some extent in biologics. The focus on vanilla generics could be reduced and more emphasis will be given on niche molecules, specialty molecules (such as cetrorelix) and value added generics.
6. Overall, very strong IP portfolio.
General information
Biogen’s New Alzheimer’s Drug Beyond Reach for Many Patients
Many Alzheimer’s clinics are holding off on prescribing Aduhelm until federal officials decide next year if Medicare will pay for it.
News here.
Indian pharmaceutical industry to reach $60bn in two years
In its report on the Indian pharma sector on Thursday, it said that it expected the industry to reach USD60bn (INR4.4trn) size during this period due to the predominance of Indian pharmaceutical market in the generic segment.
"The main factors that are expected to drive the growth of the industry are (a) ability to leverage the opportunity available for Indian pharma companies due to expiry of the patent drugs across the globe, (b) ebbing of regulatory risks, (c) adoption of various strategies to de-risk from dependency on China for key raw materials, (d) increasing trend in private equity investments, and (e) solid fundamentals of the industry," according to the report.
News here.
Intellectual Property
Ibrutinib decision by Delaware Court
Court upheld below listed OB patents of AbbVie's Ibrutinib (Imbruvica).
There are several patents listed in OB, following patents are of particular interest of this litigation.
US 8,008,309: THE #309 PATENT (THE COMPOUND PATENT)
Claim 10 of the #309 patent claims ibrutinib, the active ingredient of Imbruvica®. Alvogen argued that claim 10 is invalid because it was anticipated by Pan article, which was published on 12 December 2006.
The parties agreed that the Pan article and its supporting Information describe ibrutinib.
They disputed, however, whether Pan was published before the date of ibrutinib's invention.
Pharmacyclics argued, two provisional patent applications (60/826,720 and 60/828,590 ) of # 309 were filed with the USPTO before Pan was published.
Provisional Application Nos. 60/826,720 (the #720 application) filed on 22 September 2006, and 60/828,590 (the #590 application) filed on 6 October 2006.
The two provisional applications, both disclose the following reaction scheme for the synthesis of ibrutinib:
The parties argued whether the provisional applications enabled the starting material (intermediate 2) for synthesis of Compound 4. It was pointed out the chemical structure above the "2" in the diagram of the reaction pictured above is Intermediate 2.
The #590 application also disclosed the following reaction scheme for the synthesis of Compound 6 (Ibrutinib)
Court concluded,
1. Pharmacyclics has produced sufficient evidence and argument to show that the #720 application and #590 application contain written descriptions that support all the limitations of claim 10 of the #3 09 patent.
2. Alvogen, on the other hand, has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 10 of the #309 patent is not entitled to the filing date of either the #720 application or #590 application.
3. The Court therefore found that claim 10 of the #309 patent has a filing date of 22 September 2006. Claim 10 is presumed to have been invented on that date and therefore cannot be anticipated by Pan, since Pan's publication date is 12 December 12 2006.
4. Claim 10 of the #309 patent is thus not invalid.
US 8754090: THE #090 PATENT (THE METHOD OF US -MANTLE CELL LYMPHOMA)
Claims are as below
1. A method for treating mantle cell lymphoma in an individual who has already received at least one prior therapy for mantle cell lymphoma comprising administering to the individual once per day between about 420 mg to about 840 mg of an oral dose of Ibrutinib
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the once per day oral dose is about 560 mg.
Here the main prior art was Phase I study document.
The court said, the mere fact that ibrutinib was being studied in a Phase I trial does not speak to ibrutinib’s efficacy. Less than 5% of oncology drugs that enter a Phase I trial ultimately receive FDA approval. Thus, a broad Phase I study protocol would not have motivated a skilled person to use ibrutinib to treat mantle cell lymphoma and derived dose of about 560 mg.
So generics are unlikely until March 2031. The generic launch date could be further delayed based on Paediatric extension, polymorphs and compositions used by the generics.
Decision here.
Disclaimer
Sidvim LifeSciences Private Ltd has taken due care and caution in developing this document. Since the data used for analysis in this document is based on the information available in the public domain, its adequacy or accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. This document is for information only and Sidvim is not responsible for losses that may or may not arise due to any decisions made based on the same. No part of the document shall constitute or be represented as a legal opinion of any kind or nature. No warranties or guarantees, expressed or implied, are included in or intended by the document, except that it has been prepared in accordance with the current generally accepted practices and standards consistent with the level of care and skill exercised under similar circumstances by professional consultants or firms that perform the same or similar services.