|
|
Post by Clement on Jun 5, 2020 6:49:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Jun 5, 2020 7:35:57 GMT -5
Does Liquidia use Technosphere or some other delivery method?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2020 7:50:21 GMT -5
Does Liquidia use Technosphere or some other delivery method? The use a different technology that is geared more towards the semiconductor chip making process. |
|
|
|
Post by uvula on Jun 5, 2020 8:01:25 GMT -5
Does this mean a large pharma company could have sued mnkd when they applied for a nda for afrezza and it would have delayed it by 30 months. This doesn't sound fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jun 5, 2020 8:14:34 GMT -5
Does this mean a large pharma company could have sued mnkd when they applied for a nda for afrezza and it would have delayed it by 30 months. This doesn't sound fair. Fair? Do you watch the news? |
|
|
|
Post by rfogel on Jun 5, 2020 9:11:15 GMT -5
Does this mean a large pharma company could have sued mnkd when they applied for a nda for afrezza and it would have delayed it by 30 months. This doesn't sound fair. What I find interesting is that the Hatch-Waxman Act was meant to encourage the development and marketing of cheaper generics, yet it includes this provision allowing patent holders to block the NDA approval for two and a half years. Some encouragement. Big pharmas have the wherewithal to handle the process, but smaller companies are put in a difficult position. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 6, 2020 6:54:57 GMT -5
Liquida was ahead of UTHR on this point. You may not have noticed but Liquida filed an action with the PTO to invalidate some of the UTHR patents. If the PTO grants that request, that effectively ends the matter and Hatch-Waxman no longer applies. It was a very smart thing for Liquida to do because the PTO reviews patent matters much faster than the US District Court and, because they are technology experts, an appeal is much more likely to get a rational, fact-based decision. The devil is always in the detail so I don't know which company will prevail on the merits, but this will likely not take 30 months to settle.
|
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jun 6, 2020 7:50:24 GMT -5
I wonder why Liquidia did not include anything beyond conclusory statements about why the patents were invalid or how its product would not breach them.
It would have made more sense for Liquidia to specify how the UT patents are invalid or not infringed upon.
Without a valid claim as to why UT's patents are invalid or why they are not breached, then Liquidia does not have a case.
Sure will be interesting see how this unfolds.
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 6, 2020 13:26:40 GMT -5
I wonder why Liquidia did not include anything beyond conclusory statements about why the patents were invalid or how its product would not breach them. It would have made more sense for Liquidia to specify how the UT patents are invalid or not infringed upon. Without a valid claim as to why UT's patents are invalid or why they are not breached, then Liquidia does not have a case. Sure will be interesting see how this unfolds. The patents Liquidia is disputing are the ‘066 patent and the ‘901 patent. These are continuation patents of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,393 which has already been invalidated by the USPTO in 2016 by SteadyMed. Generally continuation patents are heavily dependent on the initial patent so my money would be on Liquidia to get those patents invalidated. At that point the law suit evaporates. There is not much for Liquidia to say because what they are doing is BAU - if the original patent is invalid you can usually invalidate the continuation patents because the underpinning is now gone. Liquidia is rolling up the continuation patents to avoid exactly what UTHR has just done. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 7, 2020 7:39:54 GMT -5
Agedhippie has it right; Liquida is going after the continuation patents. Press releases are not the forum where Liquida needs to state their case in detail; the PTO proceeding is where that happens. There will be lots of evidence heading toward the PTO examiners when the time comes.
Patent strategies that rely on a single core patent with lots of add-ons and continuations are inherently risky unless the core patent is rock solid. If the core patent has been invalided, as in this case, the whole house of cards can come tumbling down. UTHR can still conduct its business, they will just have competition in the market.
|
|
|
|
Post by radgray68 on Jun 7, 2020 9:56:32 GMT -5
Does this mean a large pharma company could have sued mnkd when they applied for a nda for afrezza and it would have delayed it by 30 months. This doesn't sound fair. What I find interesting is that the Hatch-Waxman Act was meant to encourage the development and marketing of cheaper generics, yet it includes this provision allowing patent holders to block the NDA approval for two and a half years. Some encouragement. Big pharmas have the wherewithal to handle the process, but smaller companies are put in a difficult position. I used to wonder why so many of our "government representatives" have law degrees. Then I started seeing where everything congress puts out starts several new lawsuits all across the land. So, in essence, lawyers...enact laws... to create more lawsuits. The End. |
|
|
|
Post by seanismorris on Jun 7, 2020 11:59:45 GMT -5
I figured lawyer to politician was a natural progression.
When you’re a professional liar, what else can you do as an encore? Not everyone can be an executive of a public company...
|
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Jun 7, 2020 15:32:52 GMT -5
The complete progression is ... lawyer to politician to convict.
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 7, 2020 17:06:13 GMT -5
What I find interesting is that the Hatch-Waxman Act was meant to encourage the development and marketing of cheaper generics, yet it includes this provision allowing patent holders to block the NDA approval for two and a half years. Some encouragement. Big pharmas have the wherewithal to handle the process, but smaller companies are put in a difficult position. I used to wonder why so many of our "government representatives" have law degrees. Then I started seeing where everything congress puts out starts several new lawsuits all across the land. So, in essence, lawyers...enact laws... to create more lawsuits. The End. It's not a function of lawyers in government, but rather that when a new law comes out companies push the envelope to see what advantage they can get and often times that ends in legal action. Once the boundaries firm up the lawsuits drop off. This is also why companies like to form in states that have well defined case law - certainty. While government representatives often have law degrees the bills are almost always drafted by career civil servants. For various reason I know a few people in Albany and I only know of one senator who drafts their own bills (everyone else thinks he is a little strange, and yes he is a lawyer who gave a up a very well paid position to become a politician because he believes it is important). |
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jun 7, 2020 17:09:48 GMT -5
Agedhippie has it right; Liquida is going after the continuation patents. Press releases are not the forum where Liquida needs to state their case in detail; the PTO proceeding is where that happens. There will be lots of evidence heading toward the PTO examiners when the time comes. Patent strategies that rely on a single core patent with lots of add-ons and continuations are inherently risky unless the core patent is rock solid. If the core patent has been invalided, as in this case, the whole house of cards can come tumbling down. UTHR can still conduct its business, they will just have competition in the market. This is why when people go on about the number of patents, or the length of time those patents have to run I am not very impressed. What matters is the quality; can they standalone, is there prior art and they are just relying on nobody looking, are they continuation patents. That sort of thing. |
|
