A few days ago, a very interesting decision on the blockbuster drug Truvada® landed on my laptop courtesy of Matthieu Dhenne. According to the decision, Gilead’s request for preliminary injunction to halt the distribution of Mylan’s generic version of Truvada® on the French territory was denied on September 5, 2017.
Soon thereafter, a most interesting report on the decision reached my inbox courtesy of Lionel Vial.
Owing to both of them, my main remaining task was to find a title and a patent illustration for the post. So, if those are neither apt nor witty, that’s on me.
As you will see, this decision is a good opportunity to revisit the CJEU case law on combo SPCs, since there is a UK-based pending reference to the CJEU in connection with the Truvada® litigation.
I will now leave the floor to Lionel.
Today we report about France’s contribution to the ongoing pan-European litigation over generics of Truvada®.
Truvada® (Gilead) is an anti-HIV drug comprised of the combination of Tenofovir Disoproxyl Fumarate (TDF) and Emtricitabine (FTC). It has received a relatively important media exposure since it became, in 2012, the first drug to be approved by the Federal Drug Agency (FDA) for Pre-exposure Prophylaxy (PreP) of HIV infection. As such, the TDF/FTC combination can be used to reduce the risk of sexually acquired HIV-1 infection in adults who do not have HIV but are at high risk of becoming infected. By way of example, the so-called IPERGAY clinical study has evidenced that this combination allowed for a reduction of 86% of the risk of being infected by HIV.
Truvada® was covered until 25 July 2017 by European patent EP0915894. The effects of the patent have been extended by supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) which will expire between 21 and 24 February 2020 depending on the countries.
The SPCs are based on European Union marketing authorization EU/1/04/305/001 and on claim 27 of the basic patent, which reads as follows:
A pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound according to any one of claims 1-25 [N.B. tenofovir disoproxil is claimed in claim 25] together with a pharmaceutical carrier and optionally other therapeutic ingredients.
As will be readily spotted by our trained readers, the main question of law arising from this wording is whether the use of the expression “other therapeutic ingredients” to refer to emtricitabine (FTC) is indeed sufficient to protect the TDF/FTC combination pursuant to Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (hereafter the « SPC regulation »).
Intense litigation over the validity of the SPCs has ensued, which has notably led Justice Arnold of the High Court of England and Wales to request a preliminary ruling of the CJEU on the question of knowing “What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation?” (yes, again). The case is pending as C-121/17.
The current status of selected SPCs is summarized in the following table:
|Country||Decision of the patent Office||Validity status|
|Belgium||Granted||Ruling on the merits pending|
|Germany||Granted||Ruling on the merits pending|
|Great-Britain||Granted||Ruling of the High Court stayed pending C-121/17|
|Ireland||Granted||Ruling on the merits pending|
|Italy||Granted||Ruling on the merits pending|
|The Netherlands||Rejected||Ruling of the Court of Appeal stayed pending C-121/17|
|Spain||Rejected||Rejection overturned by the Administrative Court of Madrid|
|Sweden||Rejected||Rejection upheld by the Court of Appeal|
It is now France’s turn to take position on the validity of the SPC.
French SPC No. 05C0032 was granted on December 21, 2006 and will expire on February 24, 2020. Mylan obtained a generic marketing authorization for the TDF/FTC combination on December 16, 2016. On July 13, 2017, Gilead requested a preliminary injunction under urgency proceedings to prohibit the sale of Mylan’s generic. The case was heard on August 11, 2017. Meanwhile, Mylan offered its generic for sale on July 26, 2017, i.e. one day after the term of the basic patent. The ruling was rendered on September 5, 2017.
As could be expected, the judge performed a quite thorough appraisal of the case law of the CJEU regarding Article 3(a) of the SPC regulation as applied to this case, notably:
- C-322/10 (Medeva): active ingredients have to be specified in the wording of the claims;
- C-443/12 (Actavis v. Sanofi): the basic objective of the SPC regulation is to compensate for the delay to the marketing of what constitutes the core inventive advance [i.e. the technical contribution] that is the subject of the basic patent;
- C-493/12 (Eli Lilly): where the active ingredient is covered by a functional formula in the claims, Article 3(a) does not preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient, on condition that the claims relate, implicitly but necessarily and specifically, to the active ingredient in question.
The French judge also noted that in cases C-443/12 and C-577/13 (Actavis v. Boehringer), the CJEU had considered that the core inventive advance forming the subject of the respective basic patents was limited to the compound the invention of which was sought to be protected, even though combinations with other compounds (which invention did not form the subject of the patent) were mentioned.
In the case at hand, the French judge thus considered that the SPC was “in all likelihood invalid”, because none of the conditions defined the case law of the CJEU were apparently fulfilled.
Here is the relevant part of the decision (based on the English translation distributed by cabinet Schertenleib):
It appears that claim number 27 is drafted so broadly that it does not describe any specific active ingredient that should be combined with tenofovir disproxil [NB: this a reference to C-322/10]; it thus does not protect a combination that is likely to result in entitlement to the grant of a patent.
Moreover, the combination claimed as active ingredient “tenofovir disoproxyl + emtricibatine” is not implicitly but necessarily and specifically taught in the description [NB: this is a reference to C-493/12], there is no indication whatsoever that would enable the person skilled in the art to choose emtricibatine and it quite evidently does not constitute the core of the invention [NB: this is a reference to C-443/12].
If tenofovir disoproxil indeed constitutes the subject matter of the basic patent, the combination of tenofovir disoproxil with any other therapeutic ingredient cannot constitute a separate invention.
On the one hand, this combination as claimed in claim No. 27 is not a functional claim because it does not describe the structure that should be produced and the function that the second product should fulfill in order to build this structure. [NB: this is a reference to C-493/12]. On the other hand, assuming that this claim was functional, the steps defined by the Dutch Patent office in order to determine whether emtricibatine was sufficiently taught by the patent as being the necessary therapeutic ingredient of claim number 27 are relevant:
1 – Upon reading the phrase formulation in the context of the patent and in the light of their general knowledge, would the person skilled in the art think of the active therapeutic ingredient (biological)?
2 – Would the person skilled in the art think immediately of antiviral agents?
3 – Would the person skilled in the art immediately deduce that these antiviral agents designate anti-HIV agents?
4 – At the priority date, would the person skilled in the art have immediately thought of emtricitabine as anti-HIV agent?
Based on the description and as was perfectly highlighted by the Dutch Office of Industrial Property, no specific combination has been claimed, no relevant element has been reported so as to induce the person skilled in the art to select emtricitabine especially as there is no indication leading one to select a second antiviral agent as the “other therapeutic ingredient” let alone an antiviral anti–HIV agent.
As a consequence, Gilead’s request for preliminary injunction was refused. It now remains to be seen if this preliminary conclusion will be upheld when the case will be tried on the merits.
Finally, we would like to go back to Justice Arnold’s request for further guidance of the CJEU on the question “what are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation?”. Apparently, Justice Arnold’s goal was to get a ruling establishing that, pursuant to Article 3(a), SPCs for combinations of active ingredients should be reserved for cases where the combination, as distinct from one of the active ingredients, embodies the inventive advance of the basic patent. But perhaps the Truvada® case was not the best one for such a reference to the CJEU.
Indeed, as emtricitabine is only purported to be specified by the expression “other therapeutic ingredients”, there is a chance the CJEU will not feel it necessary to go beyond its previous ruling according to which active ingredients have to be specified in the wording of the claims.
Well, to Lionel’s latter point, UK courts have always been quite prolific in asking SPC-related questions to the CJEU. As we know, this will probably soon come to an end. So maybe this was something of a last chance for them to try and get a final answer to a longtime puzzle?
CASE REFERENCE: Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, ordonnance de référé, September 5, 2017, Gilead Sciences Inc. et al. v. SAS Mylan, RG No. 17/57112.