Gilead Sciences wins $ 1.2 trillion reversal in patent case with Bristol Myers

by

Aug. 26 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Thursday handed down a $ 1.2 billion ruling against Gilead Sciences Inc (GILD.O), which found that the patent for a therapy against the cancer that was charged with offense was invalid, in a coup against rival Bristol Myers. Squibb Co. (BMY.N).

The two companies have been embroiled in a case involving allegations that Yescarta, Gilead’s Kite Pharma unit CAR-T cell immunotherapy, infringed a patent for a similar Juno Therapeutics therapy. Bristol.

Last year, a federal judge increased damages from a jury trial and ordered Gilead to pay Bristol Myers $ 1.2 billion for the patent infringement case. Thursday’s ruling by the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

Bristol Myers said in a statement that he disagreed with the latest ruling and would call for a review of the Federal Circuit decision.

Gilead and Kite attorney Josh Rosenkranz of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gilead shares rose 0.3%, while Bristol shares fell 0.5% at noon trading.

Gilead, Yescarta, belongs to a class of cutting-edge cancer treatments known as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy or CAR-T, which reprograms the body’s own immune cells to recognize and attack malignant cells.

Gilead bought Kite Pharma, which developed Yescarta, for $ 11.9 billion in 2017, with the treatment gaining U.S. approval that year. It recorded sales of $ 338 million during the first six months of this year.

In 2019, a jury found that Kite intentionally infringed and awarded Juno and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, which licenses the patent to Juno, for $ 778 million. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez raised the award to $ 1.2 billion in Los Angeles federal court last year.

Memorial Sloan Kettering did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bristol Myers acquired Juno and its CAR-T program with the purchase of Celgene for $ 74 billion in 2019.

U.S. Circuit Chief Justice Kimberly Moore wrote to a three-judge unanimous court that the relevant parts of Juno’s patent were invalid because they did not have a sufficient written description and details.

The sentence was joined by circuit judges Sharon Prost and Kathleen O’Malley.

During an oral discussion in July, Moore compared the description of the patent to an attempt to identify a particular car by saying it has four wheels.

(This story corrects paragraphs 1 and 2 to show a patent, not patents)

Reports of Ankur Banerjee in Bengaluru and Blake Brittain in New York; Edited by Bill Berkrot

Our standards: the principles of trust of Thomson Reuters.

.Source