Analyzing Recent Global Patent Disputes in Pharma: Leveraging International Laws and Litigation

Global patent disputes in the pharmaceutical industry have become increasingly complex and high-stakes, with parallel litigation across multiple jurisdictions becoming more common. The differences in patent laws and procedural rules across countries can lead to varying outcomes, as seen in recent disputes involving CRISPR-Cas9, Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron, Ultomiris, and Biktarvy.

In the CRISPR-Cas9 case, the differences in patent prosecution rules between the United States and Europe allowed the CVC group to achieve a favorable outcome in Europe that they were unable to secure in the United States. This highlights the importance of understanding and leveraging local laws to obtain desired results in patent disputes.

Similarly, in the Amgen v Sanofi & Regeneron case, the parties engaged in litigation across multiple jurisdictions, with varying outcomes in different countries. The case ultimately led to a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court regarding the enablement requirement for broad genus claims in the pharmaceutical industry.

The Ultomiris and Biktarvy litigations also demonstrate how companies can use foreign proceedings to leverage favorable resolutions in global patent disputes. Settlement agreements in these cases involved significant upfront payments and royalty agreements, showcasing the strategic importance of navigating international patent disputes.

Overall, these cases underscore the importance of early strategic planning in global patent litigation, as decisions made during patent prosecution and early stages of disputes can have far-reaching consequences. Understanding and leveraging the nuances of local patent laws and procedural rules can be crucial in achieving favorable outcomes in international patent disputes in the pharmaceutical industry.