Rob Brunelli was quoted in a story that ran in the February/March issue of Pharmafocus about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
The Court ruled in favor of pharmaceutical company Teva allowing it to continue marketing its multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone without the threat of being undercut by cheaper generic versions of its top-selling MS drug.
According to Brunelli, the result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Teva case could increase the cost and further complicate patent cases for pharma companies in the US.
“The Teva decision more clearly than ever before shows that Federal District Courts will be given significant discretion in deciding disputed facts upon which the purely legal issues of patent law are based. Accordingly, I expect litigants will in the future spend more time and resources researching all factual issues that may be relevant to a legal patent issue and then seek to present to the reviewing Court those factual points believed to advance their cause.”
Brunelli goes on to say, “the practical result of this shift in judicial philosophy is that fewer cases will settle early, with parties opting to wait until after a District Court has resolved relevant factual disputes before considering negotiated resolutions. This in turn means that litigants will need to expend more resources earlier in a case to first develop and then present factual issues to the involved Court.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.