BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Patent

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, October 26, 2023

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$347.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will guide patent counsel on the implications of recent litigation strategies and discuss strategic considerations of label language.

Faculty

Aaron Clay
Director, Intellectual Property Litigation
Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp

Mr. Clay is a Director of Global Litigation & Patents at Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Prior to Merck, he was Of Counsel at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP in Washington, D.C. where he specialized in patent litigation, post-grant proceedings, and appeals related to pharmaceuticals and biologics. Mr. Clay also clerked for the Honorable Kara F. Stoll at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Chandrika Vira
Director
Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox Pllc

Ms. Vira is a director in the firm's Trial & Appellate and Biotechnology & Chemical Practice Groups. She represents clients in complex patent litigations in federal district courts, in contested proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and before the Federal Circuit on appeal. She litigates cases involving a broad range of technologies in the pharmaceutical, biotechnological, and electrical arts. She focuses her practice on litigating cases involving small-molecule pharmaceuticals under the Hatch-Waxman Act and biologics and biosimilars under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Shana K. Cyr
Senior Corporate Counsel – IP
Bristol Myers Squibb, Co.

Dr. Cyr is Senior Corporate Counsel in the BD and Commercial IP Group of the Innovation Law Department at Bristol Myers Squibb in Princeton, New Jersey.  Before joining BMS, she was a partner at one of the world’s largest intellectual property law firms, focusing on complex patent litigations and contentious patent office proceedings relating to pharmaceutical products.  Dr. Cyr served as judicial law clerk to the Honorable Kimberly A. Moore at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and as judicial intern to the Honorable Noel Hillman at the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Dr. Cyr holds a J.D. with High Honors from Rutgers University School of Law – Camden, a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of Virginia, and a B.S. in chemistry with biology and mathematics minors from the University of Richmond.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

A drug label may prove significant in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation, particularly concerning induced infringement of method-of-use patent claims.

35 U.S.C. 271(b) requires that the accused "actively induces infringement." As the Supreme Court explained several years ago in Global-Tech v. SEB (U.S. 2011), "actively induces infringement" means the accused knew of the patent and knew the induced acts were infringing. In Hatch-Waxman litigation, the patents listed in the Orange Book and the generic manufacturer's paragraph IV certification demonstrate the first prong of Global-Tech. The second prong of specific intent to induce infringement may be proven by the drug label instructions and information.

In Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit found direct infringement attributable to physicians. The court found the defendants liable for inducing that infringement due to "evidence that the product labeling that Defendants seek would inevitably lead some physicians to infringe establishe[d] the requisite intent for inducement."

In Sanofi v. Watson (Fed. Cir. 2017), a case in which the claim tracked the label precisely, the Federal Circuit relied on the label in finding the specific intent required to encourage an infringing use. Evidence of substantial non-infringing uses was not relevant to the inducement inquiry.

In Vanda Pharm. v. West-ward Pharm. Int'l (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit found induced infringement based on the proposed label and explained how, in the Hatch-Waxman pre-launch context, actual past direct infringement does not have to be shown. Moreover, "patentees in Hatch-Waxman litigations asserting method patents do not have to prove that prior use of the NDA-approved drug satisfies the limitations of the asserted claims." The court also cited Sanofi when the alleged infringer tried to rely on evidence of substantial non-infringing uses.

In a precedential decision in GlaxoSmithKline L.L.C. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit held that a generic pharmaceutical company could be liable for inducing infringement based on a skinny label. The decision could have a far-reaching effect on branded and generic drug manufacturers in their preparation of launching generics. In light of GSK, a skinny label alone is likely not enough to preclude induced infringement allegations.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys discusses the implications of Lilly and label language for induced infringement. The Orange Book listed patent's label may be written so that the generic manufacturer is more vulnerable to a finding of induced infringement. The panel will offer guidance on strategic considerations and best practices for label language.

Outline

  1. Implications of recent decisions for induced infringement
  2. Other Federal Circuit induced infringement decisions
  3. Strategic considerations of label language for induced infringement, including applying the teachings of Sanofi and Vanda

Benefits

The panel will review these and other noteworthy issues:

  • What impact will recent decisions have on proving induced infringement?
  • What impact will recent decisions have on claim drafting?
  • What strategic considerations should patent owners keep in mind when labeling drugs?