Friday, August 04, 2006

Biovail loses to Anchen; KCI loses to BlueSky; mixed ruling in Amgen/Sanofi/Shire

the Globe and Mail

Ruling hammers Biovail

Globe and Mail Update

Just as storm clouds were forming above Biovail Corp.
and its enigmatic chairman, the drug maker was hit
with a downpour Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2006, losing a patent
infringement case that opens the door for a cheaper
generic copy of its best-selling antidepressant
Wellbutrin XL.
The unexpected U.S. court ruling wiped out a quarter
of the stock's market value as one analyst said the
decision now lessens any chance of Biovail reaching a
settlement with four generic drug companies to
forestall competition so it can maintain its revenue,
an industry trend in recent years.
In a statement, the company said it is reassessing
financial guidance for 2006 of revenue between
$900-million (U.S.) and $1.07-billion and share profit
of $2.30 to $2.40, excluding special items.
“That's the most negative thing Biovail said in its
press release,” said one analyst, who asked not to be
identified. “It kind of implies that a generic could
show up sooner than later.” Biovail's new guidance
will be released on Aug. 10, along with second-quarter

Drug maker Biovail Corp. said Wednesday it
will review its financial guidance for the year after
losing a key ruling in a U.S. court over alleged
patent infringement of its Wellbutrin XL
antidepressant, one of the company's key drugs.
The Tuesday ruling by Central District of California
Judge James Selna ruled that Anchen Pharmaceutical
Inc. did not infringe on the Biovail patent, but
denied the U.S. generic drug maker's request to
invalidate the patent.
Shares in Biovail, one of Canada's largest publicly
traded drug makers, fell 17 per cent after resuming
trading following a halt order pending the news. The
stock fell $4.03 to $19.73 in Wednesday trading of
"Biovail is reassessing its previously issued
financial guidance for 2006, and is assessing the
impact the court's ruling may have on the timing of
when Anchen may be in a position to launch a generic
version of Wellbutrin XL," the Toronto-area company

**********on vacuum bandages for wounds***

from "

Aug 3 (Reuters) - Kinetic Concepts Inc. [KCI]
a medical
technology company, suffered a major blow on Thursday
as a jury found it failed to prove rival BlueSky
Medical Group infringed its patents for its key wound
closure product line.
The jury in the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court in San Antonio found the company's patents were
not infringed, according to court documents.
"This is not a positive outcome -- this (product) is
the whole company," said Raj Denjoy, a Piper Jaffray
The wound closing products in the second quarter
comprised about 78 percent of Kinetic's $330 million
in revenue.
Kinetic Concepts, based in San Antonio, Texas, had
sued privately held BlueSky, alleging its device
infringes Kinetic Concepts' patents covering
vacuum-assisted closure technology to stimulate
healing of complex wounds.

from "

CAFC has mixed ruling in Amgen-Shire patent
By Peter Loftus
Last Update: 2:09 PM ET Aug 3, 2006

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling Thursday August 3 in a long-running patent-infringement dispute involving
drug companies Amgen Inc. (AMGN), Sanofi-Aventis (SNY)
and Shire PLC (SHPGY).
The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Washington upholds a lower-court
ruling that Sanofi and Shire infringed upon two Amgen
patents for its blockbuster anemia treatment, Epogen.
But the court vacated a ruling that a third Amgen
patent was valid, and reversed a ruling that a fourth
patent was infringed.
The Amgen patents in question are related to
erythropoietin, or EPO, a substance that stimulates
red blood cell production and is the basis for Epogen,
which last year had sales of $2.5 billion.
In 1997, Amgen, of Thousand Oaks, Calif., filed a
lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts against two
companies that are now part of Sanofi of France and
Shire of the U.K., alleging they infringed Amgen
patents for EPO and seeking to block their plans to
sell their own EPO product, Dynepo.
The case went to trial, resulting in a court ruling
that some of the patents were infringed while others
weren't. Rulings were appealed, and the case has
bounced back and forth between federal district and
appeals courts.

[IPBiz post 1837]


Note the internet available decision in BlueSky related
to blurring and tarnishment.

“Blurring involves the gradual whittling away or dispersion of the identity and hold upon public
mind of the mark or name by its use in noncompeting goods.”14 “Tarnishment results
when one party uses another’s mark in a manner that tarnishes or appropriates the
goodwill and reputation associated with the mark.”15 Proof of actual dilution is required;
at least where the marks are not identical, mental association alone is insufficient to
establish actionable dilution.16

One had: BlueSky’s own advertising campaign relies on this brand recognition:
“Are you getting VACuumed by your current wound drainage company?”


Post a Comment

<< Home