By: Alyson L. Wooten, Pharm.D.GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva, No. 14-878-LPS-CJB (D. Del) Following a seven-day trial last year, a jury found that Teva willfully induced infringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. RE40,000 from January 2008 to April 2011 (“skinny label period”) and from May 2011 until June 2015 (“full label period”), and awarded $234 million in lost profits and $1.4 million in reasonable royalty damages to plaintiff. Teva filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, which was granted in part, in an opinion issued last week by Judge Stark finding that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict of induced infringement. The product at issue, generic carvedilol, was originally launched by Teva with a section III carve out (which was in effect from January 2008 to April 2011) and then later, in May 2011, Teva amended its label to include the carved out indication for congestive heart failure (“CHF”), making the label essentially a copy of the plaintiff’s full label. The relevant facts include:
- March 1985 – carvedilol compound patent issues
- May 1997 – FDA approval of Coreg® (carvedilol) tablets for the treatment of CHF along with 2 other approved uses (hypertension and left ventricular dysfunction); plaintiff only marketed the CHF indication
- June 1998 – U.S. Patent No. 5,760,069 issues claiming the use of carvedilol as a method of treating CHF
- March 2002 – Teva files ANDA for carvedilol tablet with a paragraph III certification to the carvedilol compound patent and a paragraph IV certification to the ’069 patent
- March 2007 – carvedilol compound patent expires
- August 2007 – Teva amends its paragraph IV certification to the ’069 patent to a section viii statement, and carves out the CHF indication from its label
- September 2007 – Teva’s ANDA is approved and Teva launches generic carvedilol
- January 2008 – the ’069 patent reissues as the ’000 patent
- April 2011 – Teva amends its label to add back in the CHF indication
- June 2015 – the ’000 patent expires
But even if the label were enough in a post-launch world, Dr. McCullough specifically stated that he did not read Teva’s label prior to administering generic carvedilol, but “just assume[d] they were the same” based on the information the generic company provided. As Dr. McCullough concedes that he did not read Teva’s label, he cannot state, for instance, that he noticed or otherwise knew what (if anything) that label said about using carvedilol to treat CHF. Moreover, Dr. McCullough testified that he relied on various other sources, none of which are attributable to Teva, in deciding to prescribe carvedilol, both before and after generics entered the market. GSK, therefore, has not met its burden to show inducement.Again emphasizing that proof of causation is necessary for a finding of inducement, the court found that “[r]egardless of Teva’s actions after it amended its label in May of 2011, including its elimination of the carve-out from its label, physicians were already prescribing generic carvedilol to treat CHF at that time. No substantial evidence was presented at trial to support a finding that anything about doctors’ behavior – either as a class, or even a single doctor – was induced to change by Teva’s label, or by anything else Teva did (or failed to do).” A footnote toward the end of the court’s opinion highlights that both parties raised important policy questions regarding the use of section iii carve-outs under the Hatch-Waxman framework. Does a section iii carve-out allow a generic manufacturer to enter the market at risk and “then argue it was not liable because its label was not the ‘sole cause’ of the direct infringement?” Do generics have an obligation” to “police and affirmatively correct doctor’s misunderstandings of AB-ratings” if the infringement is based on an off-label use? The court, while noting these concerns, found that the “parties’ policy arguments have not impacted the Court’s ruling on these pending motions.” However, these are issues that will be closely followed in the appeal of this case. PDF of Article
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.