Re: Manufacturing/quality-control patents for US FoBs
You’re right—it’s not that simple.
In the Lovenox patent case, TEVA sidestepped liability for infringing MNTA’s ‘886 patent because: 1) they produced generic Lovenox in Italy; and 2) the Court deemed MNTA’s patent a “quality control” invention rather than a “making something” invention.
Unfortunately (for MNTA and other FoB companies), much of the IP for FoBs pertains to producing FoBs that are within a small quality-control tolerance of the branded reference product. Hence, US courts may allow the importation exemption afforded to TEVA’s generic Lovenox in many instances.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.