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

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.