Close
CDMO Safety Testing 2026
Novotech

Merck shares plunges after losing to Gilead

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

โ€“ Access the Media Pack Now

โ€“ Book a Conference Call

โ€“ Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Related stories

Glass vs Polymer: Choosing the Right Material for Parenteral Packaging

In the pharmaceutical industry, material selection plays a critical...

FDA Advances Real-Time Clinical Trials With AstraZeneca, Amgen

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has unveiled a...

Chiesi Advances Rare Disease Portfolio with KalVista Deal

Chiesi Group has entered into a definitive agreement to...
- Advertisement -

Merck & Co. fell after a federal judge tossed a record $2.54 billion verdict it had won against Gilead Sciences Inc. over a hepatitis treatment.

A federal jury in 2016 had said that Gilead owed Merck 10 percent of the sales of its Sovaldi and Harvoni hepatitis C drugs. District Court Judge Leonard Stark in Wilmington, Delaware, agreed Friday with Gileadโ€™s argument that the Merck patent was invalid.

Merck was down by 1.9 percent to $55.23 at 1:05 p.m. in New York trading.ย  Foster City, California-Gilead was up 1 percent to $81.49.

The patent, issued in 2009, is for a compound that Merckโ€™s Idenix unit contends is the basis for all major treatments for hepatitis C, including ones made by Gilead. Merck claimed it was first to synthesize the compound, while Gilead said it didnโ€™t cover a new idea.

Patent owners are required to describe inventions with enough detail to allow others to replicate them without unnecessary time and effort. In this case, Stark said, Merckโ€™s patent covered so many potential compounds that it would take โ€œexcessive experimentationโ€ to narrow them down.

Based on that, โ€œthe only reasonable findingโ€ is that the patent is invalid, Stark said in the decision.

Merck, based in Kenilworth, New Jersey, pledged to appeal the judgeโ€™s findings, saying it โ€œdoes not reflect the facts of the case.โ€ โ€œThe patent at issue in this case facilitated significant advances in the treatment of patients with HCV infection, and achieving these advancements required many years of research and significant investment by our subsidiary and its partners,โ€ the company said in a statement.

โ€œWe believe strong patent protection is essential to innovation,โ€ the company added. โ€œGiven that it guarantees a firm a period of return on investment, patent protection provides the research-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries with an incentive to invest in research and development.โ€

Officials with Gilead didnโ€™t immediately return messages seeking comment. A lawyer for Gilead on the case, Josh Rosenkranz of the Orrick law firm, said in a statementthe legal team was โ€œthrilledโ€ with the decision.

Sovaldi was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2013 and Harvoni got regulatory go-ahead a year later. Merckโ€™s drug, Zepatier, was approved in 2016.
Gilead had conceded infringement of the patent, a common legal tactic that allowed it to focus on the validity issue during trial. After rejecting Gileadโ€™s argument about the patent, the jury said that Gilead owed 10 percent royalties on $25.4 billion in total sales for the two drugs.

In a separate part of the ruling, Stark rejected Gileadโ€™s argument that the damages amount was unfair — an issue that becomes important only if the patent is later revived on appeal.

The verdict was the largest patent-infringement verdict in U.S. history, dwarfing the next biggest, a $1.67 billion verdict won by Johnson & Johnson against Abbott

Laboratories that was later thrown out on appeal, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The case is Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc., 14-846, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
ย 

Latest stories

Related stories

Glass vs Polymer: Choosing the Right Material for Parenteral Packaging

In the pharmaceutical industry, material selection plays a critical...

FDA Advances Real-Time Clinical Trials With AstraZeneca, Amgen

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has unveiled a...

Chiesi Advances Rare Disease Portfolio with KalVista Deal

Chiesi Group has entered into a definitive agreement to...

AstraZeneca UK Investment Resumes with ยฃ300m Commitment

In a reversal of its earlier stance, AstraZeneca has...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

โ€“ Access theMedia Pack Now

โ€“ Book a Conference Call

โ€“ Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate ยป