ChatGPT is amazing!
Here’s what was returned when asked about relevant case law.
—
There have been several cases where companies selling research peptides or chemicals have been involved in patent infringement lawsuits. Below are examples of notable cases where companies faced legal action related to patent infringement in the context of research chemicals or peptides:
1. Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019)
This case involved a dispute over the manufacturing of biosimilar drugs (not exactly research peptides, but closely related biologics). Hospira was making biosimilar versions of Amgen’s patented erythropoietin (Epogen®), and Amgen argued that Hospira’s use of its manufacturing processes constituted patent infringement. Hospira claimed its production was for research purposes to prepare for FDA approval under the safe harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) (the Bolar exemption), but the court ruled in favor of Amgen for certain batches, stating that manufacturing exceeded the research exemption.
Relevance to Research Peptides: The Bolar exemption allows for some research uses but does not shield companies that engage in commercial-scale manufacturing, even if the label is for “research.”
2. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012)
This case concerned the sale and use of a patented method to test generic versions of the anticoagulant enoxaparin (Lovenox®). Momenta held patents on the methods of testing enoxaparin for FDA approval, and Amphastar used similar methods during production. Amphastar argued that their use fell under the safe harbor provision, but initially, Momenta secured an injunction. Later, this ruling was reversed when the Federal Circuit found that Amphastar’s testing for FDA approval fell within the Bolar exemption.
Relevance to Research Peptides: This case demonstrates the fine line between research for FDA approval and commercial use. If a company is using patented processes or compounds for anything beyond strictly research and approval purposes, it may still face infringement claims.
3. Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (Supreme Court, 2017)
Although not directly about peptides, this case dealt with biosimilars and patent rights. Sandoz was trying to introduce a biosimilar for Amgen’s Neupogen®. Amgen argued that Sandoz violated patent law by not providing proper notice under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The Supreme Court ruled partially in Sandoz’s favor, clarifying certain rules about when biosimilar manufacturers can launch products.
Relevance to Research Peptides: This case illustrates the complexities surrounding biologic products and patent law, especially when involving potential “research” exemptions or safe harbors.
4. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012)
In this case, Allergan sued Sandoz over the development of a generic version of its glaucoma drug, Lumigan®. The case revolved around Sandoz’s attempts to develop and test a generic drug that allegedly used Allergan’s patented method. Sandoz’s defense was based on the “safe harbor” provision, but the court found that some of their activities exceeded the scope of the exemption.
Lessons from Case Law:
• Research Exemptions Are Narrow: Courts have typically found that research exemptions (like the Bolar exemption in the U.S.) apply only to activities directly related to obtaining regulatory approval, such as FDA testing, and do not apply to general research or commercial production.
• Commercial Activity is Risky: Even labeling a product as “for research use” does not necessarily protect a company from infringement claims if the product is being marketed for uses that overlap with patented methods or substances.
• Defenses to Patent Infringement: Many companies try to argue that their use is exempt under research or experimental use provisions, but if the research is linked to eventual commercial activity, courts have found infringement.
Conclusion:
If a research peptide company is marketing a product like tirzepatide and it overlaps with a patented use or substance, it risks litigation. While research exemptions can apply in some cases, they are very narrowly construed and often don’t protect commercial activities. Given this risk, companies selling research chemicals should exercise caution and seek legal advice to ensure they are not infringing on existing patents.
If you want more details about these cases or others, I can help explore that further!
