In Vivo is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

TransForm, J&J and topiramate: New life, old products

Executive Summary

In May, the US Patent Office granted TransForm its first patent on topiramate sodium trihydrate-an alternate salt form of J&J's $700 million epilepsy drug Topamax. J&J found itself with an interesting complement to Alza reformulation efforts on the drug--which were gearing it for alternative indications like obesity and migraine--and a potential IP complication. The business-like result: a broad licensing agreement under which TransForm assigns all its topiramate patent rights to J&J in exchange for up-front money, an equity investment, milestones, and future royalties.

You may also be interested in...



Big Pharma's Biggest Drug Delivery Experiment: Johnson & Johnson

J&J has been Big Pharma's most aggressive experimenter with the drug-delivery and formulations world, but its two biggest transactions haven't provided the value J&J had originally hoped for.

The Search for Defensible IP in Older Drugs

The jumpstart model reduces drug development risk by starting with existing drugs which are then reformulated or repurposed for new or expanded indications. In every case, the parent drug either already belongs to somebody else or has lost patent protection, or soon will, and is therefore freely available for others to exploit. As such, early competition is a significant risk for any jumpstart product. Devising an IP fence high enough to protect a new product could determine a company's success going forward.

The Battle for IP

Generic firms are increasingly attacking innovators' drug patents before they expire--even, in some cases, the previously invulnerable active ingredient patents--and courts are supporting some of their tactics. The primary means used by generic firms for mounting this offensive campaign: Paragraph IV filings, which claim that the innovator's patent is invalid or won't be infringed. It's a tactic that generic firms are relying on more heavily. While the details of each patent dispute differ widely, one thing is clear: generic firms are finding successful ways to maneuver around existing innovator patents. They are winning in court almost 75% of the time after litigating Paragraph IV challenges. In particular, the Pfizer/Reddy case exposes how generic firms can and will poke holes in an innovator's intellectual property. Notwithstanding that Pfizer had explored and patented the derivative salts of Norvasc, this case highlights how the timing of certain types of patents may be crucial. In addition, it may motivate pharmaceuticals to more comprehensively explore alternative forms and formulations of their compounds. Besides building a portfolio of strong patents, fully exploring the form and formulation space could result in a secondary benefit: discovering a superior product.

Related Content

Topics

Related Companies

Related Deals

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

SC031354

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel