In a little noticed order, a federal judge recently raised the intriguing possibility that a so-called patent thicket — a large number of patents that a drug maker obtains to thwart rivals — might stifle competition if the patents were established as the result of some misbehavior.

The order was issued last month in a lawsuit filed by AbbVie (ABBV), which is seeking to prevent Boehringer Ingelheim from marketing a biosimilar version of its Humira rheumatoid arthritis treatment. The medicine generated nearly $12.4 billion in sales last year in the U.S. alone for AbbVie and is protected by dozens of patents, many of which do not expire until 2022.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is a premium subscription that delivers daily market-moving biopharma coverage and in-depth science reporting from a team with decades of industry experience.

What's included?

  • Authoritative biopharma coverage and analysis, interviews with industry pioneers, policy analysis, and first looks at cutting edge laboratories and early stage research
  • Subscriber-only networking events and panel discussions across the country
  • Monthly subscriber-only live chats with our reporters and experts in the field
  • Discounted tickets to industry events and early-bird access to industry reports

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • @Observer079: I think you’re mixed up. What makes patent settlements “pay for delay” or “reverse payments” is that the patent-holder ends up paying the alleged infringer while proclaiming (through settlement) the validity of the patent. The contention is that this happens because the patent-holder splits the monopoly profits off the extended patent term for an invalid patent. If, as here, the infringer is paying the patent-holder for entry before patent expiration, that’s decidedly NOT a pay for delay situation and there’s no inference to be drawn that the patent is invalid.

    • HH10, I don’t question your explanation – what I surmise is they are not deferring merely out of the goodess of their hearts – and that the future royalties will reimburse whatever they are getting from AbbVee to hold off. Or, as you say, I may just be mixed up.

  • Hmmm, AbbVee denies paying to delay. Assuming this sentence by our scribe is accurate -, “Both companies agreed not to launch biosimilars in the U.S. until 2023, and will pay royalties to AbbVie.” – this seems to argue precisely for that. It reminds one of the current ‘collusion in plain sight’ dialectic.

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy