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.
You need a subscription to continue reading this content.
To access the full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need to take out a paid subscription.
News stories up to a week old and feature articles on the day of publication are accessible with a BASIC FREE ACCOUNT.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website, archive, and to receive print publications, choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial with full access, select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’; and for basic access to the latest news on the website and weekly email news alerts choose the 'BASIC FREE ACCOUNT' registration.
quia timet injunctions, generic drugs, english high court, Efavirenz