Federal Circuit Court Appeal Cites Rachel E. Sachs
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AMGEN INC., AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LTD., and AMGEN USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
SANOFI, SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, AVENTISUB LLC, f/d/b/a AVENTIS, Defendants-Appellants.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 14-1317-SLR
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND EXPEDITED BRIEFING
From the appeal document:
[...] Other Authorities
Prof. Rachel Sachs, Let’s All Worry About the Effects of Patent Injunctions Against Drug Manufacturers, Harvard Law Bill of Health Blog (Jan. 6, 2017), http://bit.ly/2jhLYYM ........................... 2, 20, 21, 22:
[...] Moreover, damages are the norm in a case between two innovators like this one. An injunction “taking an already approved, available [pharmaceutical] product off the market” is exceedingly rare, occurring “about once a decade.” Sachs, n.2, supra. Indeed, recently, Merck did not ultimately pursue an injunction pulling Gilead’s Hepatitis C drug off the market after establishing infringement. Id. If money damages were enough to satisfy the patentee permanently there, they are surely enough to avoid substantial harm to Amgen pending appeal here.
[...] Finally, and critically, “the public interest” points unmistakably in favor of a stay pending appeal. Standard Havens, 897 F.2d at 512. If Praluent is withdrawn, transitioning to Repatha will be complex and costly for patients. Many insurance contracts cover only Praluent and will have to be renegotiated—a process that often takes months and could leave patients without treatment in the interim. See Ex.S¶15; Sachs, n.2, supra (“At least some patients will undoubtedly go without the drug during a transition period.”).
bioethics biotechnology fda health law policy innovation intellectual property pharmaceuticals public health rachel sachs regulation