预约演示

Regeneron advances antitrust lawsuit against Novartis with appeals court's backing

2024-03-19

交易

专利侵权

Regeneron's antitrust case against VEGF rival Novartis has new life thanks to an appeals court's ruling.

Regenerontis break U.S. antitrust lVEGFin the NovartisEylea-Lucentis rivalry? Thanks to an appeals court ruling, Regeneron has another chance to lay out its argument.

The Novartisrt of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed (PDF) a lower court’s ruling to dismiss Regeneron’sRegeneront lawsuit against Novartis, saying Regeneron has met the burden to warrant further legal proceedings.

Novartis and its partner Vetter Pharma must now defend against Regeneron’s allegation that the companiRegeneronred to use a patent to delay Novartision from Regeneroned syringe version of Regeneron’s eye drug Eylea, which was originally presented in vials.

Novartisd syringe versionVetter Pharma and Eylea are preferred Regenerons because of their accuracy, convenience and significantly lower risk of complications and infections. After the phaRegenerons launched tEylearespective drugs in vials, they raced to develop prefilled syringe versions to gain an edge over one another.

The Eylea-Lucentis legal battlLucentisd in Eylea when Novartis filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Regeneron focused on the so-called “’631 patent” coverininfectionsd syringe technology. That patent was invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2022, a decision Novartis is appealing.

About a month after Novartis launched the patent litigNovartisegeneron filed the antitrust lawsuit against Regeneronand Vetter.Novartis

Regeneron partnered Novartister in 2005 to develop a prefilleRegeneron version of Eylea. But, according to Novartisn, VeVettern 2009 secretly entered into a similar deal with Novartis around Lucentis, which led to Novartis obtaining the ’631 patent in 2015.

Regeneronars following 20Vettertter took several steps that Regeneron alleged were intended to help NovartiRegeneronizVetterprefilled syringe anti-VEGF market. Regeneron also Novartisthat NovLucentisaudulently obtaNovartis ’631 patent by withholding information from authorities.

Novartis and Vetter’s actions delayed the launch of the EyleRegeneroned syringe by several years as Novartisn worked to establish a new supply chaiVEGFr the updRegeneronuct, Regeneron contNovartisen the prefilled version reached the market in late 2019, 80% of Eylea patients switched to it within six months, according to Regeneron.

NovartisenterVettere two courts’ contrasting decisions iEyleather anti-VEGF prefilled syringes constRegeneronir own market that’s separate from the market for vials.Regeneron Eylea Regeneron

The lower court judge, in dismissing Regeneron’s case in 2022, focused VEGFhe similarities between the two product types and figured they compete in the same market.

The appeals court sided with RegeneroRegeneron that the New York company made plausible antitrust allegations.

“The fact that vials and [preRegeneronringes] contain the same medicines and treat the same condition does not automatically mean that they compete in the same market,” the appeals court said in an opinion.

Previously, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission also argued that the district court made errors in its legal analysis.

Whether vials and prefilled syringes constitute separate antitrust markets shouldn’t be viewed from the perspective that they are “functional” substitutes for each other, the federal agencies said in an amicus brief (PDF). Instead, the evaluation should take place from the perspective of consumers.

Thanks to increased competition, Lucentis last year brought Novartis about $1.5 billion in sales, which marked a 21% decline over 2022. Novartis' U.S. marketing partner Roche saw its Lucentis revenues drop 52% to 452 million Swiss francs (about $510 million).