Skip to main content

Schering Corp (Merck & Co) Vs Sun Pharma

By
A patent infringement complaint was filed by Schering Corp a subsidiary of a Multi national pharma company Merck & Co against Sun Pharma Indian Pharma Company last week in the district court for New Jersey.

This complaint was filed in regard to the generic version of most widely used brain cancer drug Temodar. Sun Pharma filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to launch a Generic version of Temodar in the US Market.

Temodar, which Merck acquired through the acquisition of Schering-Plough last year, has annual global sales of about $1 billion. It has sales of about $380 million only in the US market.

Interestingly Merck & Co has the patent protection for Temodar in US till 11th August 2013. The world's leading generic company, Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical-owned Barr Laboratories, had succeeded early this year in invalidating patent rights of the same drug so Sun Pharma assuming the significance of the above decision filed an ANDA.

The patent litigations were very common in generic drug business in the US. According to the US rules for generic drug launches, the generic company which files a patent-infringing ANDA has to be sued by the innovator within 45 days to prevent the FDA from approving the generic for the next 30 months. In most such cases, the companies settle the litigation out of court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

IPAB has allowed an appeal and granted patent to Pfizer for Tofacitinib and its salts

By
                                                    In a decision dated 21st August 2020 IPAB vide its  Order  has allowed an appeal and granted Patent  to Appellant M/s. PFIZER PRODUCTS INC., USA  for Tofacitinib and its salts. The appeal is against the   order dated 3 rd  September 2015 passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, whereby the Appellant’s Indian patent application no. 00991/MUMNP/2003 was rejected on the ground that it is hit by section 13(1)(b) and being non-patentable under section 3(d). The Appellant requested for an urgent hearing of the matter and IPAB considered the request for urgent hearing and passed the present order.  This Patent application claimed the compound 3-{(3R,4R)-4-Methyl-3-[methyl-(7H-pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidin-4-yl)-amino]-piperidin-1-yl}-3-oxo-propionitrile and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof (Tofacitinib and its salts) and was refused by the patent office on various grounds, including anticipation by p
Post a Comment
Read more

Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh Tenure as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) extended for Another three months

By
  The Supreme Court on September 16, 2020 has extended the tenure of Honourable Justice Manmohan Singh as Chairman of IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board)  for another three months.  Justice Manmohan Singh was appointed on July 2017 for a term of three years.  However as per the rules governing the appointment his term would come to an end on attaining retirement age of 65 years on 22nd September 2019. Since Government has not appointed any Chairman thereafter, on a Petition by International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) the Supreme Court has extended his term for another year i.e, till 21st September 2020 as the Petitioner claimed that IPAB will be Defunct with his retirement thereby causing hardship several litigants. The Central Government has notified in March 2020 that Justice Singh will continue as the chairman of IPAB up to September 21, 2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.  Now with this extension, Honourable Justice Manmoha
Post a Comment
Read more

Punitive Damages for Infringement of Trade Dress by Delhi High Court in an Interim Application

By
Delhi High Court vide its Judgement dated 31st July 2018 in  Louboutin-3 case has granted permanent injunction and punitive damages against a Delhi based retailer for infringing the famed ‘Red Sole’ trademark of Christian Loubutin.  The Plaintiff‟s "RED SOLE" trademark, i.e. , wherein a specific tone of colour red (Pantone no. 18.1663TP) is applied to the outsole of a shoe, is unique in its own accord and became known in the world of fashion only after being introduced by the Plaintiff herein as their Trade Dress. The consumers in India identify the Plaintiff as the sole proprietor of the Christian Louboutin trademarks including the "RED SOLE" trademark and any use of the said trademarks by an unrelated entity will entail taking undue advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, which has been built painstakingly over the several decades; The Defendants are located in Kamla Nagar Market, New Delhi, who were found to be dealing in infringing
Post a Comment
Read more