silly Mattersight mayhem unfolded -- here finally is the update, on all the various patent spats around the globe, between Merck and BMS, in immuno oncology. [Our backgrounder, from 18 months ago, here.]
As I've indicated below, by bolding parts -- this cornucopia of global litigation is still in the early stages, but is hotly contested -- as billions are once again potentially at stake. Of particular note is that the formal EU litigation has not yet been filed, but could potentially eventually result in an injunction against sales by one of the parties, there -- though I think that is not especially likely. In any event, here's the whole section, in context, from Monday's SEC Form 10-Q filing, at pages 22 to 23:
. . . .As previously disclosed, Ono Pharmaceutical Co. (Ono) has a European patent (EP 1 537 878) (’878) that broadly claims the use of an anti-PD-1 antibody, such as the Company’s immunotherapy, Keytruda, for the treatment of cancer. Ono has previously licensed its commercial rights to an anti-PD-1 antibody to Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in certain markets. The Company believes that the ’878 patent is invalid and filed an opposition in the European Patent Office (EPO) seeking its revocation. In June 2014, the Opposition Division of the EPO found the claims in the ’878 patent are valid. The Company received the Opposition Division’s written opinion in September 2014 and the Company submitted its substantive appeal in February 2015. In April 2014, the Company, and three other companies, opposed another European patent (EP 2 161 336) (’336) owned by BMS and Ono that it believes is invalid. The ’336 patent, as granted, broadly claimed anti-PD-1 antibodies that could include Keytruda. In February 2015 and May 2016, BMS and Ono submitted requests to amend the claims of the ’336 patent. During a hearing in July 2016, the EPO allowed the May 2016 amendment and, as a result, the claims of the ’336 patent no longer broadly claim anti-PD-1 antibodies such as Keytruda.
In May 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit in the UK seeking revocation of the UK national versions of both the ’878 and ’336 patents. In July 2014, Ono and BMS sued the Company seeking a declaration that the ’878 patent would be infringed in the UK by the marketing of Keytruda. The Company has sought a declaration from the UK court that Keytruda will not infringe the ’336 patent in the UK. BMS and Ono notified the Company of their request to amend the claims of the EPO ’336 patent and of their intention to seek permission from the court to similarly amend the UK national version so that the claims of the ’336 patent would no longer broadly claim anti-PD-1 antibodies such as Keytruda. A trial was held in the UK in July 2015. At that trial, the issues of validity and infringement of the ’878 patent were heard at the same time by the court. In October 2015, the court issued its judgment, finding the ’878 patent valid and infringed. Merck appealed this judgment. The appeal is scheduled to be heard in March 2017. BMS and Ono have concurrently started a proceeding to determine the amount of damages and royalties the Company would pay should the appeal be denied. A hearing in that proceeding is scheduled for October 2017.
In February 2015, the Company filed lawsuits in the Netherlands seeking revocation of the Dutch national versions of both the ’878 and ’336 patents. BMS and Ono amended the claims of the ’336 patent so that the claims of the ’336 patent no longer broadly claim anti-PD-1 antibodies such as Keytruda. Trial regarding the validity and infringement of the ’878 patent was held in January 2016. In June 2016, the District Court in The Hague issued its judgment finding the Dutch ‘878 patent valid and infringed. Merck will appeal this judgment. In December 2015, BMS and Ono filed lawsuits against the Company in France, Ireland, Switzerland and Germany alleging infringement of the ’878 patent. In January 2016, BMS and Ono filed a lawsuit against the Company in Spain alleging infringement of the ’878 patent. In France, BMS and Ono filed for preliminary relief seeking payment of damages while the case is pending. A hearing on this preliminary relief was held in February 2016 and BMS’s and Ono’s request for preliminary relief was denied. Dates for trials regarding the validity and infringement of the Irish, French, Swiss and Spanish national versions of the ’878 patent have not yet been scheduled. A trial concerning the infringement of the German version of the ’878 patent is currently scheduled to begin in March 2017. The Company continues to believe the ’878 patent is invalid.
The Company can file lawsuits seeking revocation of the ’878 patents in other national courts in Europe at any time, and Ono and BMS can file patent infringement actions against the Company in other national courts in Europe at or around the time the Company launches Keytruda. If a national court determines that the Company infringed a valid claim in the ’878 patent, Ono and BMS may be entitled to monetary damages, including royalties on future sales of Keytruda, and potentially could seek an injunction to prevent the Company from marketing Keytruda in that country.
In April 2016, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States against BMS and Ono seeking a ruling that US Patent Nos. 8,779,105 and 9,084,776 are invalid and/or not infringed by the sale of Keytruda. These patents are equivalents of the ’336 patent, as originally granted. In June 2016, Ono and BMS filed a counterclaim that the Company’s marketing, making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing Keytruda in the United States for the treatment of certain cancers, including melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer, infringes these patents.
In September 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit in Australia seeking revocation of Australian Patent No. 2011203119, which is equivalent to the ’336 patent as originally granted. In March 2015, BMS and Ono counterclaimed in this matter alleging that the Company’s manufacture and supply of Keytruda to the Australian market will infringe Australian Patent No. 2011203119. A trial on this patent is scheduled for September 2017.
Ono and BMS have similar and other patents and applications, which the Company is closely monitoring, pending in the United States, Japan and other countries.
The Company is confident that it will be able to market Keytruda in any country in which it is approved and that it will not be prevented from doing so by the Ono or BMS patents or any pending applications.
In October 2015, PDL Biopharma (PDL) filed a lawsuit in the United States against the Company alleging that the manufacture of Keytruda infringed US Patent No. 5,693,761 (’761 patent), which expired in December 2014. This patent claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies and PDL is seeking damages for pre-expiry infringement of the ’761 patent.
In July 2016, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States against Genentech and City of Hope seeking a ruling that US Patent No. 7,923,221 (the Cabilly III patent), which claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies, is invalid and that Keytruda and bezlotoxumab do not infringe the Cabilly III patent. In July 2016, the Company also filed a petition in the USPTO for IPR of certain claims of US Patent No. 6,331,415 (the Cabilly II patent), which claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies and is also owned by Genentech and City of Hope, as being invalid. The USPTO has six months to decide this petition. . . .
We will of course keep an eye on all of this, so you don't. have. too. Smile. Onward, on a lovely morning -- to the symphony tonight, in all likelihood. . . . and an earlier recording of the signature work.