MEDICINES CO /DE filed this form 10-Q on 9 Nov 2017
Our patents also may not afford us protection against competitors with similar technology. Because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until eighteen months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, neither we nor our licensors can be certain that others have not filed or maintained patent applications for technology used by us or covered by our pending patent applications without our being aware of these applications.
We exclusively license patents and patent applications for several of our products and products in development and we own patents and patent applications for several of our products and products in development. The patents covering our approved products and our products in development are currently set to expire at various dates.
Angiomax. The principal U.S. patents covering Angiomax currently include the ‘727 patent and the ‘343 patent and previously included U.S. Patent No. 5,196,404, or the ‘404 patent. The ‘404 patent covered the composition of matter of Angiomax. The ‘404 patent was set to expire in March 2010, but the term was extended to December 15, 2014 by the PTO under the Hatch-Waxman Act. As a result of our study of Angiomax in the pediatric setting, we had an additional six-month period of pediatric exclusivity following expiration of the ‘404 patent. This period of exclusivity expired in June 2015.
In the second half of 2009, the PTO issued to us the ‘727 patent and the ‘343 patent, covering a more consistent and improved Angiomax drug product and the processes by which it is made. The ‘727 patent and the ‘343 patent are set to expire in January 2029, which includes pediatric exclusivity. In response to Paragraph IV Certification Notice letters we received with respect to ANDAs filed by a number of parties with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Angiomax, we filed lawsuits against the ANDA filers alleging patent infringement of the ‘727 patent and ‘343 patent and have since entered into settlement agreements with respect to our suits against three ANDA filers, Teva, APP and Sun.
In our lawsuit against Hospira, on July 2, 2015, the Federal Circuit Court ruled against us, finding the ‘727 patent and ‘343 patent invalid under the Section 102(b) “on sale” bar. In November 2015, our petition for en banc review of the Federal Circuit Court's July 2, 2015 decision was granted and the Federal Circuit Court vacated its July 2, 2015 decision. In July 2015, as a result of the Federal Circuit Court's now vacated July 2, 2015 decision, we entered into a supply and distribution agreement with Sandoz under which we granted Sandoz the exclusive right to sell in the United States an authorized generic of Angiomax (bivalirudin). On July 15, 2015, Hospira's ANDAs for its generic versions of Angiomax were approved by the FDA and Hospira began selling its generic versions of Angiomax. On July 11, 2016, in an unanimous decision, the en banc Federal Circuit Court ruled in our favor by finding that the ‘727 patent and the ‘343 patent were not invalid under the “on sale” bar The remaining issues on appeal that were not decided by the original panel were remanded back to the same panel for consideration. The Federal Circuit Court heard oral arguments on December 6, 2016 in our appeal of the court’s earlier decision but has not yet issued a decision regarding the issues on appeal. Our patent infringement litigation with Mylan was ordered to be a companion appeal to the Hospira appeal and was heard by the same judges as the Hospira appeal. On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit Court found that Mylan’s ANDA for a generic bivalirudin product does not infringe either the ‘727 patent and ‘343 patent. On June 28, 2017, the district court entered an amended final judgment in favor of Mylan and as a result we expect Mylan to commence commercialization of its generic version of Angiomax.
In addition to Hospira, other generic firms have entered the market. APP, through its affiliated company, Fresenius Kabi, commenced selling its generic version of Angiomax under provisions of a settlement agreement triggered by the Federal Circuit Court’s July 2, 2015 decision in the Hospira matter. Apotex Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories have each also commenced commercialization of generic bivalirudin products upon receiving final approval if their respective ANDA filings by the FDA even though we remain in active litigation against each company.
In addition to Hospira's, APP’s, Apotex Inc.’s and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories’ generic versions of bivalirudin and Sandoz’s authorized generic, Angiomax could be subject to further generic competition in the United States from Teva and Sun under the circumstances set forth in our respective settlement agreements with such parties and upon a final approval of each companies' ANDA filings by the FDA. Pliva Hrvatska DOO, an affiliate of Teva, currently has tentative approval for its ANDA filing for its generic version of Angiomax. Other ANDA filers may commercialize their products ‘at risk’ if they receive final approval of their respective ANDA filings and are not subject to a Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay. Further, we remain in infringement litigation involving the ‘727 patent and ‘343 patent with the other ANDA filers as described in Part II, Item 1. Legal Proceedings of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. There can be no assurance as to the outcome of our infringement litigation. We may continue to incur substantial legal expenses related to these matters. If we are unable to enforce our U.S. patents covering Angiomax, Angiomax could become subject to further generic competition, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results. Following our settlements with Teva, APP and Sun, we submitted the settlement documents for each settlement to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, and the U.S. Department of Justice, or the DOJ. The FTC, the DOJ and state attorney general offices could seek to challenge our settlements with Teva, APP or Sun, or a third party could initiate a private action under antitrust or other laws challenging our settlements with Teva, APP or Sun. While we believe our settlements are lawful, we may not prevail in any such challenges or litigation, in which case the other party might obtain injunctive relief,