Generic Drug Developer Lacks Standing to Appeal Adverse IPR Ruling

Apr 24, 2020

Reading Time : 2 min

Apotex filed a petition for an inter partes review (IPR) challenging the validity of Novartis’ U.S. Patent 9,187,405 (the ’405 Patent), which generally covers methods for treating relapsing multiple sclerosis. The Board instituted proceedings and subsequently joined several other generic companies as petitioners to the proceeding, including Argentum. At the conclusion of the IPR, the Board held that the petitioners failed to show the claims were unpatentable and the petitioners appealed. Before the opening briefs were filed in the appeal, Novartis settled with all of the petitioners except Argentum. Novartis then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that Argentum, the only remaining petitioner, lacked Article III standing.

Argentum opposed Novartis’ motion and, in doing so, argued that it suffered at least three concrete “injuries-in-fact” that confer standing. First, Argentum argued that it faced a real and imminent threat of litigation based on its joint development of a generic version of Novartis’ Gilenya® product for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). To bolster its argument, Argentum pointed to the fact that an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) was in the process of being filed, and further noted that Novartis had already sued multiple companies that sought to develop generic Gilenya®. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that no ANDA had been filed, any ANDA for generic Gilenya® will be filed by Argentum’s manufacturing and marketing partner KVK-Tech, and Argentum provided no evidence that it, rather than KVK-Tech, would bear the risk of any infringement suit.

Second, Argentum contended that it faced severe economic injury because a “looming infringement action by Novartis” threatened the investments it made in developing a generic version of Gilenya® and preparing an ANDA. Argentum’s purported investments included renovations to KVK-Tech’s manufacturing facilities used to manufacture drugs developed through their joint collaboration. The Federal Circuit noted, however, that this evidence was not specific to Gilenya®, crediting testimony that KVK-Tech’s new manufacturing facility will be used to produce multiple generic drugs, including drugs unrelated to the ’405 Patent. For that reason, the Federal Circuit found the evidence insufficient to establish economic harm. The Federal Circuit also found that Argentum’s allegations that it “invested significant man-power and resources to [the Gilenya® ANDA]” and that it will lose $10–50 million per year in lost profits once the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves the ANDA were conclusory and speculative and, therefore, did not establish an injury-in-fact that is “concrete and particularized.”

Third, Argentum argued it would be harmed absent relief because IPR estoppel prevents it from raising the validity issues in a future infringement action. In dismissing this argument, the Federal Circuit pointed to its own precedent, explaining that “we have already rejected invocation of the estoppel provision as a sufficient basis for standing.”

Thus, because Argentum failed to establish an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the Board’s ruling on the ’405 Patent claims.

Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2018-2273 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2020)

Practice Tip: A petitioner who seeks to appeal an IPR decision for which there is not a co-pending or related litigation must present evidence of a concrete and particularized injury to establish standing. This may include evidence indicating that an infringement suit is imminent or other economic harm. However, such evidence must be specific and tied to the claims at issue. Conclusory or speculative assertions will not suffice. And, when not included in the record before the PTAB, the evidence must be presented at the Federal Circuit.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.