Idenix sues Gilead Sciences for multiple patent infringements
Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of drugs for human viral diseases, has filed two lawsuits against Gilead Sciences, Inc.
December 04, 2013 at 05:13 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of drugs for human viral diseases, has filed two lawsuits against Gilead Sciences, Inc.
A patent is not a perfect protection against imitation. It merely grants the patent holder the right to sue infringers once they have been identied, which implies that the patent holder must supervise the market and react in case of infringement. The reality is that when an innovator applies for a patent, there is some probability that one or several rms active in the market will try to impede him from monopolizing a portion of this market.
In the pharmaceutical industry, interest in the availability of prescription drugs and the role of patents has grown considerably. In fact, the industry has been described as patent-intensive. Organizations within this sector frequently obtain patent protection and enforce patent rights and reportedly place a higher comparative value on patents than competitors in other markets.
The Patent Act of 1952 allows inventors to obtain patents on processes, machines and compositions of matter that are useful, new and nonobvious. Granted patents confer the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States the patented invention. However, The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 – known as the “Hatch-Waxman Act” – made significant changes to the patent laws in order to encourage innovation in the pharmaceutical industry while facilitating the fast introduction of low-cost generic drugs.
In one recent patent infringement instance, Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of drugs for human viral diseases, filed two lawsuits against Gilead Sciences, Inc. – a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Boston and a patent infringement and interference lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Del.
According to the Massachusetts lawsuit, Gilead infringes on two U.S. patents for treating the hepatitis C virus using 2'-methyl nucleosides co-owned by Idenix. Idenix is seeking a declaration that Gilead's distribution, importation, use, sale or offer to sell drugs containing sofosbuvir, a 2'-methyl nucleoside compound, infringes on Idenix's patents.
“Idenix has invested significant resources in nucleoside drug discovery and in building an intellectual property portfolio that aids in the discovery and development of drugs for the treatment of the hepatitis C virus and other viral diseases,” said Maria Stahl, senior vice president and general counsel at Idenix, in a statement.
The lawsuit says Gilead infringes a separate U.S. patent co-owned by Idenix that covers methods of treating the hepatitis C virus using 2'-methyl-2'-fluoro nucleosides. Therefore, Idenix is seeking a declaration that Gilead's distribution, importation, use, sale or offer to sell drugs containing sofosbuvir infringes the Idenix '600 patent.
Additionally, the Delaware lawsuit asserts a claim for interfering patents between the Idenix '600 patent and a U.S. patent owned by a Gilead subsidiary, Gilead Pharmasset LLC. Idenix is seeking to have the Gilead '322 patent declared invalid.
“While we have attempted to resolve this matter with Gilead without resorting to infringement litigation, we intend to diligently and vigorously protect our patent rights for the benefit of our company and our shareholders and prevent infringing use by others. Idenix remains confident in its patent portfolio and has several patent families that provide the Company coverage for 2'-methyl nucleoside compounds and 2'- methyl, 2'- fluoro nucleoside compounds specifically,” Stahl continued.
For more news on patent infringement, check out the following:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250