Supported by
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Teva Over Patent for Multiple Sclerosis Drug
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries could still benefit from patent protection for a multiple sclerosis drug, dealing a blow to makers of generic drugs.
In a 7-2 vote, the justices sent the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further review, saying it had not used the correct approach in analyzing whether the patent, due to expire in September, was valid. The appeals court had thrown out the patent in 2013.
The extended litigation of the case is likely to benefit Teva, based in Israel, as it continues to sell Copaxone without competition from generic-drug makers, which will offer steep discounts once they enter the market.
In the meantime, Teva is switching multiple sclerosis patients to a new version of Copaxone that is stronger, taken less frequently and has a longer patent life.
“Teva has done a masterful job of preventing a generic formulation of Copaxone, and this elongates their swap window to move more patients,” said Jason Kolbert, analyst at the Maxim Group. “Ultimately there will be a generic version of Copaxone, but it may not be for a while.”
Two teams are developing generic forms of Copaxone: One involves the Sandoz unit of Novartis and Momenta Pharmaceuticals; the other involves Mylan and Natco Pharma.
“We will continue to explore all available avenues to protect our intellectual property for Copaxone,” Erez Vigodman, Teva’s chief executive, said in a statement.
The legal question considered by the Supreme Court was to what extent the appeals court had leeway to second-guess findings made by district court judges about patent claim construction. Teva had argued that the appeals court should have deferred to a district court judge, who had previously ruled in the company’s favor.
In an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court said that the appeals court must defer to the federal district judge unless there is evidence of “clear error.” The appeals court used the wrong legal analysis in making its ruling, he said.
“A district court judge who has presided over, and listened to, the entirety of a proceeding has a comparatively greater opportunity to gain that familiarity than an appeals court judge,” Justice Breyer added.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying the appeals court took the correct approach.
Explore Our Business Coverage
Dive deeper into the people, issues and trends shaping the world of business.
A Billionaire Online Warrior: Bill Ackman, an obstinate hedge-funder who loves a public crusade, has used X to push himself into a new realm of celebrity.
Cancel Smartphones: The N.Y.U. professor Jonathan Haidt became a favorite in Silicon Valley for his work on what he called the “coddling” of young people. Now, he has an idea for fixing Gen Z.
Landline Pride: Traditional phones may seem like relics in the iPhone era, but a recent AT&T cellular service outage had some landline lovers extolling their virtues.
C.E.O. Dreams: Fresh business school graduates are raising “search funds” from willing investors to buy companies they can lead.
Nelson Peltz Wants Respect: The longtime corporate agitator feels misunderstood. Maybe his fight with Disney could change that.
The Palm Oil Supply Chain: An E.U. ban on imports linked to deforestation has been hailed as a “gold standard” in climate policy. Southeast Asian countries say it threatens livelihoods.
Advertisement