Judge overturns $200m award in Gilead v Merck
A US court has overturned an earlier ruling in which Merck was awarded $200 million in damages for patent infringement after finding that the pharmaceutical company had engaged in misconduct.
In a decision handed down by the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Beth Freeman overturned the previous verdict, handed down in March this year.
In the new judgement, handed down on June 6, Merck was barred from asserting two patents, US numbers 7,105,499 and 8,481,712 against Gilead.
Freeman added that Merck had misled the court and “shall take nothing from this suit”.
The dispute centres on Gilead’s drugs Harvoni (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir) and Sovaldi (sofosbuvir) used to treat hepatitis C.
Despite Merck being awarded $200 million in March this year LSIPR reported in May that Gilead had been given more time to submit fresh evidence in the dispute.
Gilead claimed that Phillip Durette, a former Merck scientist, had allegedly lied under oath in the dispute. According to Gilead, Durette misled jurors surrounding patents obtained by Merck that covered the sofosbuvir compound.
Gilead said that Durette relied on an earlier patent developed by another drug maker, Pharmasset, before that company was acquired by Gilead in 2011, and did not make the discoveries through his own research.
Freeman agreed.
She wrote: “Durette’s lying at his deposition, recanting that testimony at trial without proper prior notice to Gilead, and further untruthful testimony at trial all support the court’s conclusion that Merck did intend to deceive Gilead and the court.”
She added: “Candour and honesty define the contours of the legal system. When a company allows and supports its own attorney to violate these principles, it shares the consequences of those actions.
“Merck is guilty of unclear hands and forfeits its right to prosecute this action against Gilead.”
A spokesperson for Merck, told LSIPR: "The judge’s ruling does not reflect the facts of the case and we will be filing the appropriate motions to begin the appeals process. In its decision, the jury recognised that patent protections are essential to the development of new medical treatments.
"The compounds and methods at issue in this case facilitated significant advances in the treatment of patients with Hepatitis C virus infection, and achieving these advancements required many years of research and significant investment by Merck and its partners."
