For generic drug makers, previous bad behaviour may affect new litigation, especially when it comes to injunctions, as Bethan Hopewell and Geraldine Quinn explain.
In July 2013, the English High Court gave its judgment in an action brought by patentee Merck Sharp & Dohme, and its exclusive licensee Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), against generic pharmaceutical manufacturer Teva.
The issue before the court was whether Teva threatened to infringe BMS’s patent and its associated supplementary protection certificate (SPC) directed to the anti-viral agent efavirenz and so whether a final injunction ought to be granted. Quia timet (‘because he fears’) injunctions restrain harm which has not yet occurred but is imminent. These injunctions have been issued to prevent the launch of a product while a valid patent exists only on a few occasions.
Background
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
Start a subscription today to access the LSIPR website
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at achoudhury@newtonmedia.co.uk
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
quia timet injunctions, generic drugs, english high court, Efavirenz
