throbber

`
`No. 16-712
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`____________________
`
`OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, et al.,
`
`Respondents.
`
`____________________
`
`On Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`____________________
`
`BRIEF OF
`AMERICA’S HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS
`AS AMICUS CURIAE
`IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
`____________________
`
`
`JULIE SIMON MILLER
`MICHAEL S. SPECTOR
`AMERICA’S HEALTH
` INSURANCE PLANS
`601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`
`
`
`ANNA-ROSE MATHIESON
` Counsel of Record
`BEN FEUER
`CALIFORNIA APPELLATE
` LAW GROUP LLP
`96 Jessie Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`(415) 649-6700
`annarose@calapplaw.com
`
`

`

`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE........................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................. 6
`
`I. Congress Designed Inter Partes Review
`to Correct Inappropriate Patent
`Monopolies, Which (Among Other
`Harms) Drive up Drug Prices ....................... 6
`
`A. Patents on prescription drugs
`significantly and directly affect
`health plan premiums and
`consumer costs ..................................... 7
`
`B. Patent monopolies reflect a policy
`judgment that higher costs are
`worthwhile for a short time, after
`which consumers will benefit from
`less costly alternatives ....................... 10
`
`C. Congress designed inter partes
`review to reexamine
`inappropriately issued patents
`quickly and cost-effectively ................ 13
`
`II. Inter Partes Review Successfully Reex-
`amines Improper Patents ........................... 17
`
`A. Inter partes review yields
`reasonable, appropriate results ......... 17
`
`B. Results for biopharmaceutical inter
`partes review generally track
`district court results for patent
`cases ................................................... 20
`
`

`

`ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`III. Eliminating Inter Partes Review Will
`Spur Patent Abuse and Harm
`Consumers ................................................... 22
`
`A. Inter partes review takes
`significantly less time and money
`than district court litigation .............. 22
`
`B. Eliminating inter partes review
`would reward patent abuse ............... 26
`
`C. Improper patents can stifle
`competition and deter innovation ...... 30
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................ 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`iii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................. 14, 19
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc.
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................... 16
`
`Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto.
`Maint. Mach. Co.
`324 U.S. 806 (1945) ............................................ 14
`
`Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co.
`326 U.S. 249 (1945) ...................................... 11, 30
`
`STATUTES, REGULATIONS &
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`
`157 Cong. Rec. 9778 (2011) ..................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.291 ..................................................... 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq. ........................................... 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 122 ........................................................ 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 132 ........................................................ 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141 .................................................. 16, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 145 ........................................................ 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................. 17, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .................................................. 16, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 ........................................................ 19
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (2011) .................................... 14
`
`S. Rep. No. 110-259 (2008) ...................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`AHIP, Where Does Your Premium Dol-
`lar Go? (March 2, 2017), https://
`www.ahip.org/hhealth-care-dollar/ .................. 8, 9
`
`American Intellectual Property Law As-
`sociation, 2015 Report of the Eco-
`nomic Survey (June 2015) ........................... 23, 24
`
`American Intellectual Property Law As-
`sociation, 2017 Report of the Eco-
`nomic Survey (June 2017) ....................... 3, 23, 24
`
`Corinne E. Atton & April M. Breyer, Bi-
`ologics/HQ Fitzgerald, Drug Patents
`May Fare Better Than Other Tech-
`nologies In IPR Proceedings (June
`12, 2017), http://www.biolog-
`icshq.com/wp-content/uploads/
`2017/06/Drug-Patents-May-Fare-
`Better-Than-Other-Technologies-In-
`IPR-Proceedings.pdf .......................................... 21
`
`Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff, Coherus
`Challenges One AbbVie Humira Pa-
`tent In Four PTAB Proceedings,
`PharmaPatents (July 18, 2017),
`https://www.phar-
`mapatentsblog.com/2017/07/18/co-
`herus-challenges-abbvie-humira-pa-
`tent-in-four-ptab-proceedings/ ........................... 29
`
`Amy Brown, Evaluate Grp., EP Vantage
`2017 Preview (Dec. 2016), available
`at info.evaluategroup.com/rs/607-
`YGS-364/images/EPV2017Prev.pdf ................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`v
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Center for Sustainable Health Spend-
`ing, Insights from Monthly National
`Health Spending Data Through De-
`cember 2015 1 (Feb. 16, 2016), avail-
`able at https://altarum.org/sites/de-
`fault/files/uploaded-related-
`files/CSHS-Spending-Brief_Febru-
`ary_2016.pdf ........................................................ 7
`
`Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Ser-
`vices, Update to the Medicare Drug
`Spending Dashboard (Nov. 14,
`2016), https://www.cms.gov/News-
`room/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-
`sheets/2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-
`11-14.html .................................................... 7, 8, 9
`
`Mildred K. Cho et al., Effects of Patents
`and Licenses on the Provision of
`Clinical Genetic Testing Services, 5
`J. MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS 3 (Feb.
`2003), available at https://
`www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti-
`cles/PMC1907368/#__ffn_sectitle ...................... 31
`
`Roger Collier, Drug Patents: The Ever-
`greening Problem, 185 CAN. MED.
`ASS’N J. E385 (June 11, 2013), avail-
`able at https://www.ncbi.nlm.
`nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680578/ ................... 26
`
`Ryan Davis, Inter Partes Reviews Be-
`coming Friendlier to Patent Owners,
`Law 360 (March 1, 2017) https://
`www.law360.com/articles/894916/in-
`ter-partes-reviews-becoming-friend-
`lier-to-patent-owners ......................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Bianca DiJulio, Jamie Firth, and Molly-
`ann Brodie, Kaiser Health Tracking
`Poll: October 2015 (Oct. 28, 2015),
`http://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-
`finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-
`october-2015/ ........................................................ 6
`
`Electronic Frontier Foundation, Stupid
`Patent of the Month: Ford Patents a
`Windshield (May 31, 2017), https://
`www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/stu-
`pid-patent-month-ford-patents-wind-
`shield .................................................................. 15
`
`Electronic Frontier Foundation, Stupid
`Patent of the Month: HP Patents Re-
`minder Messages (July 31, 2017),
`https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/
`2017/07/stupid-patent-month-hp-pa-
`tents-reminder-messages ................................. 15
`
`Alfred B. Engelberg, Aaron S. Kessel-
`heim, and Jerry Avorn, Balancing
`Innovation, Access, and Profits —
`Market Exclusivity for Biologics, 361
`NEW ENG. J. MED. 1917 (Nov. 12,
`2009), available at http://
`www.nejm.org/doi/full/
`10.1056/NEJMp0908496#t=article ............. 13, 26
`
`Federal Trade Commission, Emerging
`Health Care Issues: Follow-On Bio-
`logic Drug Competition (June 2009),
`available at https://www.ftc.gov/re-
`ports/emerging-health-care-issues-
`follow-biologic-drug-competition-fed-
`eral-trade-commission-report ............................ 11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Theo Francis, Can You Get A Patent On
`Being A Patent Troll?, NPR (Aug. 2,
`2012), http://www.npr.org/sections/
`money/2012/08/01/157743897/can-
`you-get-a-patent-on-being-a-patent-
`troll ..................................................................... 15
`
`Free Patents Online, Method of Swing-
`ing on a Swing, http://www.free-
`patentsonline.com/6368227.html
`(last visited Oct. 24, 2017) ................................. 15
`
`Monica Grewal, James Hill, and
`Kathryn Zalewski, Trends in Inter
`Partes Review of Life Sciences Pa-
`tents, 92 BNA’S PAT., TRADEMARK, &
`COPYRIGHT J. 4 (June 17, 2016),
`available at https://www.wil-
`merhale.com/uploaded-
`Files/Shared_Content/Editorial/Pub-
`lications/Documents/2016-06-07-
`Trends-in-Inter-Partes-Review-of-
`Life-Sciences-Patents.pdf ............................ 19, 20
`
`Divya Grover, Costly Drugs to Weigh on
`U.S. Employers’ Expenses in 2018:
`Survey, Reuters (Sept. 18, 2017),
`http://www.reuters.com/article/us-
`usa-healthcare-survey/costly-drugs-
`to-weigh-on-u-s-employers-expenses-
`in-2018-survey-idUSKCN1BT1FR .................... 10
`
`Halliburton, Patent Acquisition and As-
`sertion by a (Non-Inventor) First
`Party Against a Second Party (April
`27, 2007), available at https://
`www.google.com/patents/
`US20080270152 ................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`viii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Ramy Hanna, Liane M. Peterson & Re-
`becca J. Pirozzolo-Mellowes, Com-
`paring the PTAB and District Court
`for Life Sciences Patents, Mondaq
`(July 20, 2017), http://www.mon-
`daq.com/article.asp?arti-
`cleid=611670&friend=1 ..................................... 22
`
`Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisen-
`berg, Can Patents Deter Innovation?
`The Anticommons in Biomedical Re-
`search, 280 SCIENCE 698 (May 1,
`1998), available at http://science.sci-
`encemag.org/content/280/
`5364/698.full ...................................................... 31
`
`Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation,
`Public Opinion on Prescription
`Drugs and Their Prices,
`http://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-
`opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-
`their-prices (last visited Oct. 24,
`2017) ................................................................... 12
`
`Bradford R. Hirsch, Suresh Balu &
`Kevin A. Schulman, The Impact of
`Specialty Pharmaceuticals as Driv-
`ers of Health Care Costs, 33:10
`HEALTH AFFAIRS 1714 (Oct. 2014) ....................... 8
`
`IMS Institute for Healthcare Informat-
`ics, Global Medicines Use in 2020:
`Outlook and Implications (Nov.
`2015), available at https://s3.amazo-
`naws.com/assets.fiercemarkets.net/
`public/005-LifeSciences/imsglobalre-
`port.pdf ............................................................. 4, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`ix
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Judith A. Johnson, FDA Regulation of
`Follow-On Biologics (Cong. Research
`Serv., Apr. 26, 2010), https://prima-
`ryimmune.org/wp-content/uploads/
`2014/05/Biosimilars_Congres-
`sional_Research_Service_Report.pdf........... 12, 27
`
`Aaron S. Kesselheim, Jerry Avorn, and
`Ameet Sarpatwari, The High Cost of
`Prescription Drugs in the United
`States: Origins and Prospects for Re-
`form, 316:8 JAMA 858 (Aug. 2016) ........... passim
`
`Josh Landau, IPR Statistics—Success Is
`Sector Specific, Patent Progress
`(June 23, 2017), https://www.pa-
`tentprogress.org/2017/06/23/ipr-sta-
`tistics-success-sector-specific/ ............................ 22
`
`Anne Layne-Farrar, The Other Thirty-
`Percent: An Economic Assessment of
`Duplication in PTAB Proceedings
`and Patent Infringement Litigation
`(June 28, 2017), available at
`https://ssrn.com/abstract=2994858 ............... 3, 25
`
`Anne B. Martin et al., National Health
`Spending: Faster Growth in 2015 as
`Coverage Expands and Utilization
`Increases, 36:1 HEALTH AFFAIRS 166
`(Jan. 2017) ......................................................... 10
`
`Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Ac-
`cess Commission, Report to Congress
`on Medicaid and CHIP (June 2016),
`available at https://www.mac-
`pac.gov/wp-content/uploads/
`2016/06/June-2016-Report-to-Con-
`gress-on-Medicaid-and-CHIP.pdf .................... 7, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`x
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Mercer, Mercer Survey Finds Employers
`Hold Health Benefit Cost Increases
`to 4.3%, Maintaining Stable Growth
`(Sept. 18, 2017), https://www.mer-
`cer.us/our-thinking/healthcare/mer-
`cer-survey-finds-employers-hold-
`health-benefit-cost-increases-to-43-
`maintaining-stable-growth.html ....................... 10
`
`Jon F. Merz, Disease Gene Patents:
`Overcoming Unethical Constraints
`on Clinical Laboratory Medicine, 45
`CLINICAL CHEMISTRY 324 (March
`1999), available at http://clinchem.
`aaccjnls.org/content/45/3/324.full ...................... 31
`
`Malathi Nayak, Cost of Patent Infringe-
`ment Litigation Falling Sharply,
`Bloomberg BNA (Aug. 10, 2017),
`https://www.bna.com/cost-patent-in-
`fringement-n73014463011/ ................................ 24
`
`Office of the Assistant Secretary for
`Planning and Evaluation, Depart-
`ment of Health & Human Services,
`Observations on Trends in Prescrip-
`tion Drug Spending (Mar. 8, 2016),
`https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/ob-
`servations-trends-prescription-drug-
`spending ......................................................... 7, 12
`
`Andrew Pollack, New Patents Aim to
`Delay Generics of Biologics, N.Y.
`Times, July 15, 2016, available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/
`16/business/makers-of-humira-and-
`enbrel-using-new-drug-patents-to-
`delay-generic-versions.
`html?mcubz=1 .................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`xi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`S&P Dow Jones Indices, Healthcare Ex-
`penditures for Commercial Plans up
`3.2% in the Year to February 2014:
`S&P Healthcare Claims Indices
`(June 30, 2014), available at http://
`press.spglobal.com/2014-06-30-
`Healthcare-Expenditures-for-Com-
`mercial-Plans-up-3-2-in-the-Year-to-
`February-2014-S-P-Healthcare-
`Claims-Indices?asPDF=1................................... 10
`
`Kristen Schorsch, How AbbVie Has
`Won the Humira Fight—So Far,
`Crain’s Chicago Business (Nov. 5,
`2016), http://www.chicagobusi-
`ness.com/article/20161105/IS-
`SUE01/311059994/how-abbvie-has-
`won-the-humira-fight-so-far .............................. 28
`
`Mari Serebrov, Amgen-Abbvie Agree-
`ment Erases Uncertainty for Humira
`Biosimilar, BioWorld, http://
`www.bioworld.com/content/amgen-
`abbvie-agreement-erases-uncer-
`tainty-humira-biosimilar-0 (last vis-
`ited Oct. 25, 2017) ........................................ 28, 29
`
`Michael T. Siekman & Oona M. John-
`stone, Impact of Post-Grant Proceed-
`ings on Biologics and Biosimilars,
`BioProcess International (Jan. 19,
`2017), http://www.biopro-
`cessintl.com/business/intellectual-
`property/impact-of-post-grant-pro-
`ceedings-biologics-biosimilars/ .......................... 32
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`xii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Dan Stanton, AbbVie: Humira’s Patent
`Maze Will Keep US Biosimilars
`Away Until at Least 2022, Bio-
`Pharma Reporter (Nov. 3, 2015),
`http://www.biopharma-reporter.com/
`Markets-Regulations/AbbVie-
`Humira-s-patent-maze-to-keep-US-
`biosimilars-at-bay-until-2022 ...................... 27, 28
`
`The Street, AbbVie (ABBV) Earnings
`Report: Q3 2015 Conference Call
`Transcript (Oct. 30, 2015), available
`at https://s.t.st/media/xtranscript/
`2015/Q4/13346337.pdf ................................. 28, 29
`
`Christopher A. Suarez, American Bar
`Association: Section of Intellectual
`Property Law, Navigating Inter
`Partes Review Appeals in the Federal
`Circuit: A Statistical Review, 9
`LANDSLIDE MAGAZINE No. 3 (2017) .............. 19, 20
`
`Philip Swain, The Cost-Effectiveness of
`PTAB Proceedings, PTAB Blog (Nov.
`13, 2015), http://www.ptab-blog.com/
`2015/11/13/the-cost-effectiveness-of-
`ptab-proceedings/ ........................................... 3, 25
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit, Appeals Filed, Terminated,
`and Pending, available at http://
`www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
`files/the-court/statistics/FY16_Ap-
`peals_Filed_Terminated_and_Pend-
`ing_2.pdf............................................................ 20
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir-
`cuit, 2015 Ninth Circuit Annual Re-
`port (2015), available at http://
`www.ce9.uscourts.gov/publications/
`AnnualReport2015.pdf ..................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`xiii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`U.S. Food & Drug Administration, FDA
`Approves Amjevita, a Biosimilar to
`Humira (Sept. 23, 2016), https://
`www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/
`pressannouncements/
`ucm522243.htm ................................................. 27
`
`U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Fre-
`quently Asked Questions About Ther-
`apeutic Biological Products, https://
`www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentap-
`provalprocess/howdrugsaredevel-
`opedandapproved/approvalapplica-
`tions/therapeuticbiologicapplica-
`tions/ucm113522.htm (last visited
`Oct. 25, 2017) ....................................................... 5
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Per-
`formance and Accountability Report
`Fiscal Year 2016 (Nov. 14, 2016),
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/de-
`fault/files/documents/
`USPTOFY16PAR.pdf ......................................... 14
`
`United States Patent No. 9,715,680,
`available at https://www.eff.org/doc-
`ument/united-states-patent-no-
`9715680 .............................................................. 15
`
`USPTO, Patent Technology Centers
`Management (Aug. 16, 2017),
`https://www.uspto.gov/patent/con-
`tact-patents/patent-technology-cen-
`ters-management ......................................... 20, 21
`
`USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Statistics (Mar. 31, 2017), available
`at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/de-
`fault/files/documents/AIA%20Statis-
`tics_March2017.pdf............................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`xiv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`USPTO, Trial Statistics: IPR, PGR,
`CBM 11 (Sept. 2017), available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/de-
`fault/files/documents/
`Trial_Stats_2017-09-30.pdf ....................... passim
`
`Arlene Weintraub, Key Humira Patent
`Gets Struck Down for the Second
`Time in as Many Months,
`FiercePharma (July 7, 2017),
`http://www.fiercepharma.com/legal/
`key-humira-patent-gets-struck-
`down-for-second-time-as-many-
`months ............................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BRIEF OF AMERICA’S HEALTH
`INSURANCE PLANS AS AMICUS CURIAE
`IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
`
`The undersigned respectfully submits this amicus
`curiae brief in support of respondents.1
`
`INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
`
`America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) is a na-
`tional association whose members provide coverage
`for health care and related services to millions of
`Americans every day. These offerings improve and
`protect the health and financial security of consum-
`ers, families, businesses, communities, and the na-
`tion. AHIP is committed to market-based solutions
`and public-private partnerships that improve afford-
`ability, value, access, and well-being for consumers.
`
`As AHIP and its members are uniquely aware, in-
`creases in prescription drug costs are a leading driver
`of rising health care costs that burden consumers. Be-
`cause of AHIP’s commitment to practical solutions
`that reduce consumer costs and increase patient ac-
`cess to needed medication, AHIP has a strong interest
`in preventing drug manufacturers from securing im-
`proper patents or engaging in conduct that artificially
`prolongs monopoly power over critical medications
`past the time intended by Congress.
`
`
`1 No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in
`part, and no person other than amicus or its counsel have made
`any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or
`submission of this brief. Letters of consent from all parties to
`the filing of amicus curiae briefs are on file with the Clerk’s Of-
`fice.
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`
`Because the merits briefs filed by the Solicitor
`General and Respondent Greene’s Energy Group
`thoroughly address the constitutional issues in this
`case, this amicus brief seeks to provide the Court with
`studies and data showing that inter partes review can
`be quicker, less costly, and better at facilitating the
`aims of the patent system than district court litiga-
`tion alone. As explained below, inter partes review
`promotes a strong competitive market for prescription
`drugs, which in turn expedites access to affordable,
`lifesaving medicines for millions of American citizens.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Congress designed inter partes review as a quick
`and cost-effective way for the Patent Office to revoke
`patents that should never have issued. Congress suc-
`ceeded. Inter partes review takes significantly less
`time than district court patent litigation, generally re-
`solving disputes at least a year earlier.2 The costs are
`dramatically lower. Inter partes review averages
`$451k through appeal, while the average federal court
`patent case costs between $627k to nearly $4 million.3
`
`While some of petitioner’s amici claim that inter
`partes review strikes down too many patents, the pro-
`cess is also impartial and accurate. Out of the 5,914
`inter partes review proceedings resolved as of Sep-
`tember 2017, in only 24% did the Patent Trial and Ap-
`peal Board (“PTAB”) rule some or all of the claims
`were unpatentable.4 The PTAB denied institution in
`30% of cases (outright wins for the patent owner), 28%
`
`
`2 Anne Layne-Farrar, The Other Thirty-Percent: An Eco-
`nomic Assessment of Duplication in PTAB Proceedings and Pa-
`tent Infringement Litigation (June 28, 2017), available at
`https://ssrn.com/abstract=2994858; Philip Swain, The Cost-Ef-
`fectiveness of PTAB Proceedings, PTAB Blog (Nov. 13, 2015),
`http://www.ptab-blog.com/2015/11/13/the-cost-effectiveness-of-
`ptab-proceedings/ (citing Lex Machina statistics).
`
`3 American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2017 Re-
`port of the Economic Survey I-112-116, I-162-163 (June 2017).
`
`4 USPTO, Trial Statistics: IPR, PGR, CBM 11 (Sept. 2017),
`available
`at
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/docu-
`ments/Trial_Stats_2017-09-30.pdf.
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`
`settled, 12% were joined, dismissed, or otherwise re-
`solved, and in 6% the PTAB upheld all challenged
`claims of the patent.5
`
`While most petitions are resolved in favor of the
`patent owner, inter partes review still provides a
`speedy, cost-effective, and reliable way to weed out
`improper and costly patent monopolies. The United
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) re-
`ceives more than half a million patent applications
`every year. The system is structurally biased in favor
`of granting patents, and some improper patents slip
`through the examination process. The monopolies
`created by those patents harm consumers who have
`to pay higher prices for patented products, potential
`competitors unable to enter the market, and society
`as a whole.
`
`The ills of improper patents are particularly acute
`for health care. Prescription drug prices spiral up at
`ever-increasing rates. Drugs protected by patent mo-
`nopolies cause the bulk of this price growth.6 While
`brand-name drugs comprise only 10% of all dispensed
`prescriptions in the United States, they account for
`72% of drug spending.7
`
`
`5 Id.
`
`6 IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, Global Medicines
`Use in 2020: Outlook and Implications (Nov. 2015), available at
`https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.fiercemarkets.net/public/005-
`LifeSciences/imsglobalreport.pdf.
`
`7 Aaron S. Kesselheim, Jerry Avorn, and Ameet Sarpatwari,
`The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States: Origins
`and Prospects for Reform, 316:8 JAMA 858, 860 (Aug. 2016).
`
`
`
`

`

`5
`
`As a recent article from the Journal of the Ameri-
`can Medical Association explains, “the only form of
`competition that consistently and substantially de-
`creases prescription drug prices occurs with the avail-
`ability of generic drugs, which emerge after the mo-
`nopoly period ends.”8 Yet drug makers have signifi-
`cant incentives to maximize their market exclusivity
`period by seeking additional patents on other aspects
`of their brand-name drugs (such as slightly different
`formulations or methods of administration) in order
`to block generic entry for as long as possible.9 Many
`of these follow-on patents are improper, but the long
`time frame of district court litigation itself extends
`the patent monopoly and prevents consumers from ac-
`cessing generic alternatives.
`
`Inter partes review allows the swift correction of
`inappropriately-issued pharmaceutical patents that
`block lower-cost generic drugs.10 Without inter partes
`
`
`8 Kesselheim et al., High Cost of Prescription Drugs, supra
`note 7, at 861.
`
`9 References to “prescription drugs” or “drugs” in this brief
`include biologics, complex medications that “are generally de-
`rived from living material—human, animal, or microorganism.”
`U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Frequently Asked Questions
`About Therapeutic Biological Products, https://www.fda.gov/
`drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/howdrugsaredevelopedand
`approved/approvalapplications/therapeuticbiologicapplications/
`ucm113522.htm (last visited Oct. 25, 2017). References to “ge-
`nerics” include biosimilars.
`
`10 Because the Court’s grant of certiorari focuses on inter
`partes review, this brief does as well, but most of the discussion
`applies to post-grant review and covered business method pro-
`ceedings. USPTO, Trial Statistics, supra note 4, at 3.
`
`
`
`

`

`6
`
`review, companies will funnel funds towards obtain-
`ing spurious patents instead of investing in develop-
`ment of new medications. Many challenges to im-
`proper patents will never occur. And even if a chal-
`lenger has the funds to proceed with district court lit-
`igation, consumers will bear the higher costs created
`by these extended patent monopolies.
`
`These costs and delays cause very real harms to
`American citizens. They mean that consumers must
`pay higher prices, both through direct payments for
`prescription medications and through increased in-
`surance premiums. For those who cannot afford ex-
`pensive branded medications, these delays may mean
`no access at all to needed treatments.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Congress Designed Inter Partes Review to
`Correct Inappropriate Patent Monopo-
`lies, Which (Among Other Harms) Drive
`Up Drug Prices
`
`A recent national poll found “that the affordability
`of prescription drugs continues to be at the top of the
`public’s priority list for the President and Congress.”11
`From patients who cannot afford life-saving medica-
`tions, to consumers who pay higher and higher premi-
`ums because of rising drug prices, to hardworking
`taxpayers who fund public programs like Medicaid
`
`
`11 Bianca DiJulio, Jamie Firth, and Mollyann Brodie, Kaiser
`Health Tracking Poll: October 2015
`(Oct. 28, 2015),
`http://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kaiser-health-track-
`ing-poll-october-2015/. Priorities include “‘making sure that
`high-cost drugs are affordable to those who need them’ and ‘gov-
`ernment action to lower prescription drug prices.’” Id.
`
`
`
`

`

`7
`
`and Medicare, rising prescription drug costs impose a
`heavy burden on Americans. As explained in this sec-
`tion, Congress designed the inter partes review sys-
`tem to address these harms and prevent improper pa-
`tent monopolies that drive up drug prices.
`
`A.
`
`Patents on prescription drugs sig-
`nificantly and directly affect health
`plan premiums and consumer costs
`
`The United States spends 18% of our gross domes-
`tic product on health care, up from just 7% in 1970.12
`A significant portion of that spending—and the fast-
`est growing portion—goes towards prescription
`drugs. Our nation spent more than $324 billion on
`prescription drugs in 2015.13 That represents a 9%
`
`
`12 Center for Sustainable Health Spending, Insights from
`Monthly National Health Spending Data Through December
`2015 1 (Feb. 16, 2016), available at https://altarum.org/sites/de-
`fault/files/uploaded-related-files/CSHS-Spending-Brief_Febru-
`ary_2016.pdf; Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commis-
`sion, Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP 3 (June 2016),
`available at https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/
`06/June-2016-Report-to-Congress-on-Medicaid-and-CHIP.pdf.
`
`13 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, National
`Health Expenditures 2015 Highlights 2 (2015), available at
`https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/
`Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/
`downloads/highlights.pdf; see also Office of the Assistant Secre-
`tary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health & Hu-
`man Services, Observations on Trends in Prescription Drug
`Spending (Mar. 8, 2016), https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/obser-
`vations-trends-prescription-drug-spending
`(estimating
`the
`United States spent $457 billion on prescription drugs in 2015).
`
`
`
`

`

`8
`
`increase over 2014, and outpaced the growth rate for
`all other areas of health care spending.14
`
`And it continues to increase. Global spending on
`medicine is projected to reach $1.4 trillion by 2020.15
`Our nation’s spending on prescription drugs will
`likely reach between $560 billion and $590 billion in
`2020, a 34% increase over 2015.16
`
`These trends have significant impacts on both pri-
`vate citizens and the public sector. For individuals
`paying for prescriptions out of their own pockets, ris-
`ing drug prices take a direct and obvious toll. For
`those with insurance the costs are just as substantial,
`although less obvious, because health insurance pre-
`miums have a direct relationship with costs of inputs
`such as pharmaceuticals.17 Nearly a quarter of every
`dollar spent on health insurance premiums goes to
`pay for prescription drugs.18 This is more than the
`
`
`14 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, National
`Health Expenditures, supra note 13, at 2.
`
`15 IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, Global Medi-
`cines Use in 2020, supra note 6, at 9.
`
`16 Id., at 16. These figures are on an invoice price basis.
`
`17 See, e.g., Bradford R. Hirsch, Suresh Balu & Kevin A.
`Schulman, The Impact of Specialty Pharmaceuticals as Drivers
`of Health Care Costs, 33:10 HEALTH AFFAIRS 1714 (Oct. 2014).
`
`18 AHIP, Where Does Your Premium Dollar Go? (March 2,
`2017), https://www.ahip.org/health-care-dollar/. The figures in
`this study actually understate the impact of prescription drugs
`on insurance premiums, because drugs administered in hospital
`inpatient settings were excluded.
`
`
`
`

`

`9
`
`amount spent on physician services, inpatient hospi-
`tal services, or outpatient hospital services.19
`
`On the public side, about a quarter of the entire
`federal budget goes to Medicare and Medicaid.20
`Spending for drugs in the Medicare Part D prescrip-
`tion drug program rose to $137 billion in 2015, a 13%
`increase from 2014.21 Similarly, spending for drugs
`covered under the Medicare Part B program (which
`include outpatient prescription drugs that are admin-
`istered by physicians rather than by patients them-
`selves) totaled $24.6 billion, a 14% increase from
`2014.22
`
`The bulk of this spiraling price growth is caused
`by drugs protected by patent monopolies. Although
`brand-name drugs comprise only 10% of all dispensed
`prescriptions in the United States, they account for
`72% of drug spending.23 Prices for existing brand-
`name drugs reached a double-digit growth rate in
`2015 for the fourth consecutive year, while prices for
`
`
`19 Id., at 4.
`
`20 This represents a dramatic increase since those programs
`were enacted in 1965. See Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Ac-
`cess Commission, Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP, su-
`pra note 12, at 3-5.
`
`21 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Update to the
`Medicare Drug Spending Dashboard (Nov. 14, 2016), https://
`www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/
`2016-Fact-sheets-items/2016-11-14.html.
`
`22 Id.
`
`23 Kesselheim et al., High Cost of Prescription Drugs, supra
`note 7, at 860.
`
`
`
`

`

`10
`
`generic drugs increased less than 1%.24 And this
`trend is expected to c

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.