Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Teva arguments against PFE in the Viagra patent suit bear a superficial resemblance to NVS/MNTA’s arguments against Teva in the Copaxone case:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576377981860105532.html

[Viagra's] composition was covered by a patent issued in the early 1990s and due to expire in March 2012. The Israeli drug company isn't challenging that patent.

…Pfizer applied in the early '90s for a second patent covering sildenafil's use to treat ED, which was eventually issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2002. That patent is due to expire in October 2019.

…In court documents, Pfizer argues that it initially wasn't obvious to people skilled in the art of drug research that an oral formulation of sildenafil could be used to successfully treat ED. Thus, Pfizer argues that its discovery was patent-worthy.
Pfizer said in a written statement it believes the patent is valid and infringed, and it's enforcing its rights.

Teva argues that certain claims of the second patent are invalid because prior research would have suggested to anyone skilled in the art of drug development that drugs like sildenafil could be used to treat ED. Teva…also argues the second patent amounts to "double-patenting" of Viagra.

Teva claims the second patent is unenforceable because Pfizer engaged in "inequitable conduct" by withholding certain information from the patent office. Teva alleges Pfizer failed to inform the office in a timely manner of a dispute surrounding a corresponding patent application in Canada. Pfizer argues the information was immaterial and was ultimately disclosed to the patent office.

Teva's inequitable conduct claim could be on shakier ground following a May 25 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a patent dispute between Abbott Laboratories and Becton Dickinson & Co [#msg-63573604].