The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, on October 16, 2017, ruled four of the Allergan's patents as invalid concerning its blockbuster eye drug Restasis. Allergan has said that it will appeal the decision, but what might have a wider ripple effect was another order that raised questions about Allergan's decision to transfer the patents to a Native American tribe to prolong the launch of Restasis generics.

Background

Restasis, one of the blockbuster products for Allergan, used for treatment of dry eyes, is an ophthalmic formulation of cyclosporine. It's a valuable part of their portfolio (net revenues of more than a billion dollars per year), but has been under threat from a patent challenge. Mylan and Teva are both trying to force the drug off patent before its appointed time (which is about 2024). Last December, the US Patent Office granted an inter partes review of the relevant patents, a decision that did not go down well with Allergan or its investors.

About a month ago, Allergan agreed to transfer the patents on its blockbuster Restasis to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, which has sovereign immunity and can protect them from challenges from generic competitors. As part of the agreement, the Tribe received a one-time payment of $13.75 million and possible annual royalties of about $15 million for as long as the patents remain valid. After the transfer, lawyers representing Allergan and the Tribe moved to dismiss an IPR against their patents on the grounds that the patents now enjoyed"sovereign immunity."

Allergan had made this unorthodox agreement to protect Restasis patents from challenges made through the U.S. Patent and Trade Office's inter partes review process, which is separate from any court decisions.

Generics company Mylan essentially called the move by Allergan a sham and said that it was merely an attempt to evade generic competition for a longer period of time.

Order

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a 135-page decision finding all asserted claims of the patents relating to Restasis® invalid based on obviousness. The Court, recognizing that Allergan's patent protection for Restasis ended in 2014, concluded that"Allergan is not entitled to renewed patent rights for Restasis in the form of a second wave of patent protection." The invalidated patents are United States Patent Numbers 8,629,111; 8,648,048; 8,685,930 and 9,248,19118.

In another 11-page order, separate from the one invalidating the Restasis patents for obviousness, US Circuit Judge William Bryson wrote that the court "has serious concerns about the legitimacy of the tactic that Allergan and the Tribe have employed. The essence of the matter is this: Allergan purports to have sold the patents to the Tribe, but in reality it has paid the Tribe to allow Allergan to purchase—or perhaps more precisely, to rent—the Tribe's sovereign immunity in order to defeat the pending IPR proceedings in the PTO. This is not a situation in which the patentee was entitled to sovereign immunity in the first instance. Rather, Allergan, which does not enjoy sovereign immunity, has invoked the benefits of the patent system and has obtained valuable patent protection for its product, Restasis19.

"What Allergan seeks is the right to continue to enjoy the considerable benefits of the U.S. patent system without accepting the limits that Congress has placed on those benefits through the administrative mechanism for canceling invalid patents," Bryson added.

Bryson also concluded that"Sovereign immunity should not be treated as a monetizable commodity that can be purchased by private entities as part of a scheme to evade their legal responsibility".

Case Reference:

Case 2:15-cv-01455-WCB, ALLERGAN, INC., and THE SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE, (Plaintiffs) v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al., (Defendants)

Footnotes

18 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/523-Allergan-Opinion.pdf

19 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/522-Allergan-Joinder.pdf

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.