Labeling and Induced Infringement in Pharma Patent Litigation and Protecting IP Rights

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A


Conducted on Thursday, July 13, 2017

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926
Program Materials

This CLE webinar will provide guidance to patent counsel on the implications of recent cases for labeling and discuss strategic considerations of label language. The panel will offer best practices for labeling.

Description

A drug label may play an important role in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation, particularly in relation to 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 a few 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 first prong of Global-Tech is easily shown by the patents listed in the Orange Book and the generic manufacturer’s paragraph IV certification. The second prong of specific intent to induce infringement may be proven by the instructions and information in a drug label.

In addition, according to the Supreme Court in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Techs. Inc. (Akamai III), 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014), liability for inducement requires a finding of direct infringement. On remand, the Federal Circuit concluded that a single entity is responsible for the performance of method steps when that entity “directs or controls others’ performance,” or when “the actors form a joint enterprise.”

Although the Federal Circuit explained that the type of conduct sufficient to amount to the required “direction or control” is something that is to be decided on a case-by-case basis, directing or controlling others’ performance includes circumstances in which an alleged infringer (1) “conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method,” and (2) “establishes the manner or timing of that performance.” Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks Inc. (Akamai V), 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (per curiam).

The Supreme Court decision in Commil USA L.L.C. v. Cisco Sys. Inc. (U.S. 2015), that a defendant’s good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) is also relevant to the analysis. On remand, the Federal Circuit rendered a judgment of noninfringement (Commil USA L.L.C. v. Cisco Sys. Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015).

In Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit found direct infringement attributable to physicians and held defendants liable for inducing that infringement because the “evidence that the product labeling that Defendants seek would inevitably lead some physicians to infringe establishe[d] the requisite intent for inducement.”

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys discuss the implications of Lilly and label language for induced infringement. The Orange Book listed patent’s label may be written 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.

READ MORE

Outline

  1. Implications of Lilly for induced infringement
  2. Other Federal Circuit induced infringement decisions post-Commil
    1. Takeda Pharma U.S.A. v. Hikma Am Inc. (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2015)
    2. Braintree Labs Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharm. Inc. (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2017).
  3. How do Novo v. Caraco and use codes fit in?
  4. Strategic considerations of label language for induced infringement

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • What impact will recent decisions have on label language?
  • How do use codes fit in?
  • What strategic considerations should patent owners keep in mind when labeling drugs?

Faculty

Irving, Thomas
Thomas L. Irving

Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

Mr. Irving has 35 years of experience in the field of IP law. His practice includes due diligence, patent prosecution,...  |  Read More

Rudolph, Barbara
Barbara R. Rudolph, Ph.D.

Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

Dr. Rudolph has successfully litigated complex Hatch-Waxman Paragraph IV Abbreviated New Drug Application and...  |  Read More

Other Formats
— Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include program handouts. To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video

$297

Download

$297