Patent storms continue to be rare and calm?

Recently, one of the 50 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world and the world’s largest generic drug manufacturer, Taihua Company, provoked a lawsuit in the US federal court against the world’s leading drug research and manufacturing company Lilly Flat) The patent is invalid. Taihua and Lilly's patent disputes have caused widespread concern in the industry.
It is understood that Eli Lilly and Company has been the best-selling antipsychotic drug on the global market since it was first listed in 1996. In 2004, sales reached US$4.42 billion. The high market returns are also the purpose of Taihua and other generic drug development companies eager to imitate this product. Analysts in the industry believe that once generic drugs appear in the market, Lilly's sales revenue will account for about 1/3 of the company's total sales of prescription drugs.
On April 20th, Eli Lilly and Company told reporters that the United States District Court in the southern district of Indiana, USA, on April 14th had already convicted Eli Lilly and Company of possessing patent rights for Zabula until 2011. In lawsuits between Eli Lilly and Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, etc., the court ruled in all respects to support Lilly, including the obviousness of patents, duplicate patents, unfair practices, novelty, and the purpose of public use.
"We have always believed that our patents are valid and enforceable, and the court ruling sent a clear message about the effectiveness of those patents." Obviously, Lilly's chairman, president and chief executive officer Sidney Taurel's referee The results were quite satisfactory. He said, "Protection of intellectual property rights is extremely important to the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors and patients it serves, because these rights support us to develop the next generation of innovative drugs to meet the medical needs of humans."
Analysts pointed out that even though Zyprel's patents have been effective, if adverse reactions to weight gain and hyperglycemia are caused by Zyprexa, once the resistance in the medical community appears, it is very likely to reduce the global sales of Zyprexa. This will force Lilly to seek sales growth from other products to make up for this problem.
Gazette patent dispute is not level
On April 19th, the reporter learned from the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office that on April 21, the Patent Reexamination Board conducted an “oral hearing” on the patent invalidation case of gemcitabine (Gizang), an anti-tumor drug under the company. On the same day, the Patent Reexamination Board did not announce the results.
According to the reporter's understanding, the dispute concerning the use of Lilly's Gazprom patent in China has been going on for 5 years. In 2000, Lilly Company indicted Lianyungang Hengrui Company, one of Gize's generic drug companies, for infringing on the grounds of patents. no result. This year, Lilly was once again involved in patent disputes because Lilly came to a pharmaceutical company in Heilongjiang last year and Lilly claimed that the company infringed its patents. In this case, the company’s investor, Beijing Puyang Hengfeng Technology Development Co. It is reported that at present, this Heilongjiang company has already obtained a production license for similar drugs with GEZ, but it has not yet started production.
In response, on April 20th, Eli Lilly sent a statement to reporters: "In China, patent rights that have already been issued will not be invalid unless the final judgment of the court is invalid. This judicial process is very long and usually takes many years. Only by hearing the case and resolving these cases, before the final decision of the court, the patent right that has been issued is fully valid and remains enforced."
Regarding the patent dispute itself, relevant parties of Lilly did not indicate its attitude. They only said in the statement: “Our company policy does not allow us to comment on the legal disputes that are taking place because we firmly believe that the independence of the judicial process does not want any The comment unintentionally affected the normal judicial process."
In the statement, Eli Lilly and Company is optimistic about the outcome of the patent dispute and expects that "the act of copying drugs to challenge the original research patent will occur frequently in the pharmaceutical industry." According to the relevant provisions of the Chinese Intellectual Property Office, no matter how the nature is, any appeal for patent invalidation needs to be heard by the Patent Reexamination Board. Therefore, "This type of complaint about the invalidity of patents in China is becoming more and more common." Eli Lilly said that, despite this, this trend will not change the position of innovative pharmaceutical companies that produce proprietary drugs on patent protection.
"As an innovative pharmaceutical company, intellectual property rights are the foundation on which we depend. We are confident that all our products are patented in China. We are also pleased to see the progress made by the Chinese government in intellectual property protection. And I believe the Chinese government's determination and efforts to protect intellectual property rights."
According to industry sources, once the Gazette patent is declared invalid, it will have a great impact on Lilly. The game between patented drugs and generic drugs companies is not uncommon in the industry. How to properly handle the relationship between the two has become an urgent problem for all parties.