Latham Blocks Patent Attack on $2 Billion-a-Year Blood Cancer Drug
MorphoSys and Kirkland & Ellis had accused a Janssen Pharmaceuticals biologic of infringing, but Judge Leonard Stark ruled MorphoSys' patents invalid for lack of enablement.
January 28, 2019 at 11:00 PM
3 minute read
A team of Latham & Watkins attorneys has invalidated patents that threatened Janssen Biotech Inc.'s lucrative Darzalex blood cancer biologic drug. And they did it by using a lot of patentee MorphoSys AG's own expert testimony.
U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark of Delaware ruled Friday that MorphoSys' three patents on an antibody that binds to a protein known as CD38 are invalid for lack of enablement. The patents describe too many potential antibodies—potentially a quintillion, or 10 to the 19th power, according to Janssen. Although MorphoSys disputed that number, it conceded it could be in the billions, and Stark concluded that narrowing them down to the effective cancer killers would require undue experimentation.
“Three of MorphoSys' experts characterized screening techniques as 'extremely laborious [and] involving trial-and-error experimentation,' and exhibiting 'a lot of variability,' 'tak[ing] a while to get them up and running,' such as 'a period of months' or 'longer,'” Stark wrote in his order, which was unsealed Monday.
Essentially, the patents put a person of skill in the art at a starting point for further research, and that's not specific enough to satisfy the enablement requirement, Stark ruled.
The decision stems from a high-speed race between two European biotech companies to treat multiple myeloma. Germany's MorphoSys was first to the patent office, but Denmark's Genmab AG was first to market, partnering with Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen to launch Darzalex in 2015.
Last year Darzalex rang up sales of $2 billion, and Fierce Pharma projects the figure to reach $5 billion by 2022. MorphoSys' stock price dropped 6.5 percent Monday following news of Stark's ruling.
Darzalex works by binding to the CD38 protein, destroying cancerous blood cells without triggering an immune response.
Backed by Kirkland & Ellis, MorphoSys sued Janssen and Genmab in 2016 in Delaware federal court. MorphoSys' patents describe types of antibodies and specific characteristics, such as which region of the CD38 protein they bind with, and includes a handful of representative examples. The description covered the active ingredient in Darzalex, MorphoSys charged.
Janssen argued that MorphoSys' description described a quintillion antibodies—more than every grain of sand on earth, Latham partner Michael Morin argued to Stark at a November hearing. MorphoSys disputed that figure, but its own expert conceded that the number would be in the millions or even billions, Stark noted in his order. And the active ingredient in Darzalex is only 35 percent similar to the most similar example actually disclosed in MorphoSys' patents.
“While not undisputed, any reasonable factfinder would conclude that a [person of skill in the art] would require substantial time and effort to discover antibodies” such as Darzalex, Stark concluded.
Latham's team was led by Morin and partners David Frazier, Roger Chin, Max Grant and Ann Marie Wahls, plus associates Brenda Danek and Michael Seringhaus.
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'Irreparable Harm'?: US Judge Denies Big Pharma Motion to Halt FDA-Approved Generic Drug
3 minute read'Johns Hopkins Preyed on Black Women': Ben Crump Reps Henrietta Lacks Estate
3 minute readSeveral Am Law 100 Firms Help Compliance Startup SingleFile Raise $6.5M
Jenner, Looking at 'Stretch' Goals, Reached Double-Digit Revenue and Profit Growth
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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