Courts Differ on Drug Patent Litigation Stays

Share
Recent cases have produced differing results when courts have considered requests to stay litigation of drug patent disputes during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings authorized under the 2012 America Invents Act. WilmerHale attorneys Andrea Jeffries and Nancy Schroeder say that the litigation stay requests raise questions about the 30-month stay provided by the Waxman-Hatch Act, and whether it should be extended.

They say that in four court cases, two decisions extended the regulatory stay along with a litigation stay, and two did not extend the regulatory 30-month stay because the courts did not believe they had authority to do so.

Jeffries and Schroeder write that the number of requested litigation stays may increase with the expansion of IPR practice against pharmaceutical patents, raising concerns about maintaining the benefits of the 30-month regulatory stay. They note that in cases involving Lilly and Alcon, the federal courts constructed their authority to extend the 30-month stay narrowly, requiring a showing of specific instances of failure to reasonably cooperate in expediting the action beyond the stay request itself.

“Other courts,” they conclude, “may be more willing to consider arguments to extend the regulatory stay based on the court’s inherent authority to prevent prejudice resulting from the effective shortening of the 30-month stay, a broader reading of [the law on Paragraph 4 certification] or both,” as in cases described involving Novartis and Abbott.

 

 

Read more