The US Federal Appeals Court has recognized the objections of Israel’s generic pharmaceutical giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and US drug company Viatris in the patent infringement lawsuit concerning Johnson & Johnson (J&J)’s antipsychotic drug “Invega Sustenna.” This decision opens new opportunities for Teva and Viatris to launch more affordable generic drugs.
The appeals court suggested that the final part of J&J’s patent for “Invega Sustenna” may be invalid and remanded the case to the federal district court in New Jersey. J&J’s spokesperson expressed the company’s intent to continue protecting its intellectual property, while Teva’s spokesperson expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, emphasizing the importance of providing low-cost medication to patients as soon as possible.
The background of this lawsuit includes the fact that J&J’s total sales of “Invega Sustenna” and related drugs exceeded $4.1 billion last year, with approximately $2.9 billion of that revenue coming from the US market. J&J had sued Teva and Mylan (now under Viatris) for proposing generic versions of the drug in 2018 and 2019, respectively, alleging patent infringement.
This ruling highlights significant issues regarding the validity and enforcement of patent rights. While patents are crucial for protecting innovation and justifying corporate investment in research and development, they can also impede the entry of generic drugs into the market. In the pharmaceutical sector, the social impact of patents is substantial, necessitating a balance between proper patent management and the supply of generic medications.
As future developments are closely watched, it is essential for us to deepen our understanding of patent protection and its limitations and to prepare to provide optimal advice to our clients. Through case precedents like this, it is crucial to reassess patent strategies and strengthen intellectual property rights.
