{"id":40065,"date":"2026-11-15T11:17:00","date_gmt":"2026-11-15T16:17:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/?p=40065"},"modified":"2026-11-02T13:02:22","modified_gmt":"2026-11-02T18:02:22","slug":"composition-of-matter-isnt-a-fortress-anymore-its-a-starting-position","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/composition-of-matter-isnt-a-fortress-anymore-its-a-starting-position\/","title":{"rendered":"Composition-of-Matter Isn’t a Fortress Anymore: It’s a Starting Position"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Novartis won its Entresto appeal on January 10, 2025. The Federal Circuit reversed a ruling that had invalidated the key valsartan-sacubitril patent. The opinion came five days before that patent was due to expire with its term extension [1]. Novadoz launched the first US generic Entresto on July 22, 2025 [2].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling restored the patent. It did not extend the patent. Generic entry followed the end of exclusivity by one week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same pattern shows up in other drugs. The Federal Circuit upheld the composition-of-matter patent on Eliquis (apixaban) on September 3, 2021 [3]. That patent, US 6,967,208, expires on November 21, 2026 [4]. The earliest settled generic entry date is April 1, 2028 [3]. Merck’s Januvia (sitagliptin) lost its key compound protection in January 2023, according to a DrugPatentWatch summary of Merck’s disclosures [5]. Generic Januvia launched in May 2026 [6].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A composition-of-matter (CoM) patent is still the strongest patent a drug can hold. But the date it expires is no longer the date that matters most. Pediatric exclusivity, secondary patents, settlements, and court rules on validity and Orange Book listing now decide the entry date. This article compares those dates for four drugs. It also explains four court rulings from 2023 to 2026 that changed the rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Short Answer: Is Composition-of-Matter Protection Still Enough?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

No. A CoM patent is necessary for a strong exclusivity position, but it does not set the generic entry date alone. In the cases reviewed here, entry came between 7 days and 40 months after the core patent ended. In two cases it came before a later patent expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Five Findings That Matter<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • Eliquis: the US CoM patent expires on November 21, 2026, and the earliest settled generic entry is April 1, 2028. The gap is about 16 months (analysis based on [3] and [4]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Januvia: generic entry in May 2026 came about 40 months after Merck’s key compound protection ended in January 2023. It came about six months before the salt patent expires on November 24, 2026 (analysis based on [5], [6], and [7]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Entresto: generic entry came 7 days after the main patent expired with pediatric exclusivity on July 15, 2025. It came about 15 to 16 months before a later amorphous-form patent is due to expire in November 2026 (analysis based on [2] and [8]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Courts changed four rules between May 2023 and June 2026. Three rulings (Amgen v. Sanofi, Teva v. Amneal, Hikma v. Amarin) favor challengers. One ruling (Allergan v. MSN) favors patent owners [9][10][11][12].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institution rates fell from 72% in Q3 2024 to 35% in Q3 2025. That change favors patent owners [13].<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    Definition: What Is a Composition-of-Matter Patent?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    A composition-of-matter patent claims a substance itself. In pharma, that usually means the active molecule, a defined combination of molecules, or a class of related molecules. It is different from a method-of-use patent, which claims a way to treat a disease. It is also different from a formulation patent, which claims a specific mix of ingredients, or a polymorph patent, which claims a specific crystal form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Other terms in this article have fixed meanings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • Pediatric exclusivity: a six-month extension of existing patent and exclusivity terms [5]. FDA grants it after a sponsor completes requested pediatric studies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Patent term extension (PTE): a partial restoration of patent time lost during FDA review, under 35 U.S.C. 156.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP): a judge-made rule that bars a second patent on an invention that is not patentably distinct from a first patent.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Skinny label: a generic drug label that leaves out uses still covered by a patent.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Settlement entry date: the date a brand company agrees to let a generic company launch, often before the last patent expires.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      Why Does a CoM Patent Still Matter?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      A CoM patent still matters because it is the hardest patent to design around. A generic company cannot make the same molecule without infringing. A formulation patent or a method-of-use patent leaves more room to work around.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What a CoM Patent Does Well<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      The Orange Book listing rule shows the point. In December 2024, the Federal Circuit held that a patent must claim at least the active ingredient to be listed [10]. That rule ties the most valuable listing right to claims on the molecule. Patents on device parts alone do not qualify.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Where a CoM Patent Falls Short<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      A CoM patent has a fixed end date. It also faces validity attacks on its own claims. Section 112 challenges can reach a broad CoM claim. Entresto and the Amgen PCSK9 antibody patents show how this works, and both are covered below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Analysis: the expiry date of a CoM patent is a floor for generic entry in most cases. It is not a ceiling. The real date is the last barrier to fall. That barrier can be a secondary patent, a settlement date, or a court order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Methodology: How We Compared Core Patent Expiry With Generic Entry<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Data, Period, and Record Selection<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      This analysis uses public documents dated from September 2021 to October 2026. The sources are court opinions, company press releases, a Form 10-K, the FDA’s published research, and trade or law-firm summaries. Where a primary source was not available to us, we say so in the reference list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      We included a drug if we could confirm both a core patent expiry date and a generic entry date, or a stated future entry date, from at least one source. Four drugs met that test: Eliquis, Januvia, Entresto, and (for ex-US dates only) semaglutide. We also note Ibrance as a pending case, because only a patent date is known.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      We removed duplicate records by drug. Each drug appears once in the main table. We did not include sales figures, because several sources disagreed on scope and period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      How We Calculated the Gaps<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      We calculated each gap as the number of calendar days between two documented dates, then converted the result to months. A month is a calendar month. Where a source gave only a month, we used the first day for the earliest case and the last day for the latest case. We report the range when the choice changes the result by more than one month.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      All gap figures in this article are our calculations. No source reports them as statistics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Limits of the Analysis<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      • Settlement terms are mostly confidential. We rely on dates the companies disclosed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • We did not run a database export. DrugPatentWatch organizes Orange Book patent and exclusivity records by drug, and readers can check each patent date there and in the FDA Orange Book. We cite one DrugPatentWatch analysis article for context [5].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Four drugs is a small sample. The findings show a pattern. They do not give a market-wide rate.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Entry dates in settlements often say “or earlier under certain circumstances.” Actual dates can move.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        What the Data Shows: Core Patent Expiry vs. Generic Entry<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        Comparison Table: Four Drugs, Four Different Gaps<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
        Drug (ingredient)<\/th>Company<\/th>Core patent<\/th>Core patent expiry<\/th>Generic entry<\/th>Gap (our calculation)<\/th>Sources<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
        Eliquis (apixaban)<\/td>Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer<\/td>US 6,967,208 (composition of matter)<\/td>Nov 21, 2026; with pediatric exclusivity, May 21, 2027<\/td>Apr 1, 2028 (earliest, per settlements)<\/td>About 16 months after expiry; about 10 months after pediatric exclusivity<\/td>[3][4][14]<\/td><\/tr>
        Januvia (sitagliptin)<\/td>Merck<\/td>Key compound protection, as summarized by DrugPatentWatch<\/td>January 2023, with pediatric exclusivity<\/td>May 2026<\/td>About 40 months after expiry<\/td>[5][6]<\/td><\/tr>
        Entresto (sacubitril\/valsartan)<\/td>Novartis<\/td>US 8,101,659 (valsartan-sacubitril combination)<\/td>Jan 15, 2025 with PTE; July 15, 2025 with pediatric exclusivity<\/td>July 22, 2025 (first US generic launch)<\/td>7 days after pediatric exclusivity ended<\/td>[1][8][2]<\/td><\/tr>
        Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy)<\/td>Novo Nordisk<\/td>Semaglutide patents<\/td>India: March 20, 2026. US: reported as “at least 2032”<\/td>India: generics expected from March 2026. US: no date in the sources reviewed<\/td>About 69 months between India expiry and a January 2032 US date<\/td>[15]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Ibrance (palbociclib) is a pending case. The reissued patent US RE47,739 has a term extension to March 5, 2027. Generic challengers dispute a crystalline-form patent that expires in 2034 [2]. No entry date was confirmed in the sources reviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What the Table Shows<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        The gap runs from 7 days to 40 months. No single rule predicts it. The gap depends on what stands behind the core patent and whether the owner settled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Eliquis: A Settlement Sets the Date<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        The Eliquis gap is about 16 months after the CoM expiry date. It is about 10 months after the CoM patent’s pediatric exclusivity ends on May 21, 2027 [4]. The settlement date of April 1, 2028 also falls about 35 months before the formulation patent US 9,326,945 expires on February 24, 2031 (analysis based on [3] and [4]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Januvia: Entry Came Before the Last Patent Expired<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        Generic Januvia launched in May 2026. The salt patent US 7,326,708 expires on November 24, 2026, and its pediatric exclusivity runs to May 24, 2027 [7]. Entry came about six months before the salt patent expiry and about 12 months before the end of its pediatric exclusivity (analysis).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Entresto: The Court Win Bought Days, Not Years<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        Entresto shows the shortest gap. Generic entry followed the end of the extended main patent by 7 days. A later patent did not hold the line. We cover that case in detail below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Why the Gap Matters: What Generic Entry Does to Price<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        Generic entry matters because price falls with the number of competitors. In December 2019, FDA economists Ryan Conrad and Randall Lutter reported the link for drugs with initial generic entry from 2015 through 2017 [16].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n

        “Greater competition among generic drug makers is associated with lower generic drug prices.” The FDA study found price reductions relative to the brand price of 39% with one generic competitor and more than 95% with six or more, using average manufacturer price data (Conrad & Lutter, FDA, December 2019) [16].<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

        Number of generic competitors<\/th>Price reduction vs. brand (AMP basis)<\/th>Price reduction vs. brand (invoice basis)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
        1<\/td>39%<\/td>31%<\/td><\/tr>
        2<\/td>54%<\/td>44%<\/td><\/tr>
        4<\/td>79%<\/td>73%<\/td><\/tr>
        6 or more<\/td>Over 95%<\/td>Over 95%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

        Source: Conrad and Lutter, FDA, 2019 [16]. The FDA report covers generic entry from 2015 through 2017. It does not forecast the drugs in this article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Eliquis Patent Expiration: Why US Generic Entry Is April 1, 2028<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        US generic apixaban entry is set for April 1, 2028 under settlements. The CoM patent expires 16 months earlier. The settlement date, not the patent date, controls entry [3][14].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What Did the Courts Uphold?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware ruled for Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer in August 2020. He found both the CoM patent and the formulation patent valid and infringed [3][4]. The Federal Circuit affirmed on September 3, 2021 [3].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Mylan (Viatris) and Micro Labs had challenged both patents. They argued that the ‘208 patent was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. They argued that the ‘945 formulation patent lacked written description and was obvious [4]. The courts rejected those arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Analysis: Eliquis shows the strongest version of the CoM position. The brand company beat a double-patenting attack on the molecule patent and a written-description attack on the formulation patent. Yet the patent owner still agreed to an entry date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Why Is the Entry Date Earlier Than the Formulation Patent?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        The formulation patent US 9,326,945 expires on February 24, 2031 [4]. The settlement date is April 1, 2028. That is about 35 months earlier (analysis). The settlement gave generic companies a certain date. It gave the brand companies a date later than the CoM expiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What the Settlement Date Does Not Guarantee<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        Bristol Myers Squibb’s 2025 Form 10-K says the settled generic companies are permitted to launch in 2028, “subject to additional challenges” [14]. The Pfizer announcement from 2021 uses similar language and says entry is subject to further appeals and challenges [3]. A settled date binds the parties to the settlement. It does not bind other filers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Eliquis Outside the US: One Drug, Several Clocks<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        Bristol Myers Squibb’s 2025 Form 10-K lists an estimated US minimum market exclusivity date of 2028 and a Japan date of 2026. It says the EU composition-of-matter patents and related supplementary protection certificates expire in November 2026 [14].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Analysis: a global model of Eliquis revenue needs separate entry dates for each market. One patent expiry date does not fit all of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Januvia and Janumet Generic Entry: Sitagliptin Patent Expiration vs. the May 2026 Launch<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        Generic Januvia and Janumet launched in May 2026. Generic Janumet XR followed in July 2026 [6]. Merck had won in court on two later patents, and it still agreed to dates that came before those patents expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        When Did the Sitagliptin Compound Protection End?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        DrugPatentWatch reports that Merck said its key patent protection for Januvia and Janumet, with pediatric exclusivity, ran to January 2023 [5]. From January 2023 to May 2026 is about 40 months (analysis). In that period, the salt patent and the settlements set the date [7].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What Did the Court Decide on the Salt and Co-Formulation Patents?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        On September 22, 2022, Merck announced a ruling in Merck v. Viatris from the US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Judge Irene Keeley found two patents valid and infringed. The announcement noted that the decision was subject to appeal [7].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        • US 7,326,708 covers the dihydrogen phosphate salt of sitagliptin. It expires November 24, 2026. With pediatric exclusivity, it runs to May 24, 2027 [7].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • US 8,414,921 covers the sitagliptin-metformin co-formulation in Janumet. It expires January 21, 2029. With pediatric exclusivity, it runs to July 21, 2029 [7].<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          Settlements Set the Launch Dates<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Merck settled with several generic companies. Under those settlements, generic Januvia and Janumet could launch in May 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances. Generic Janumet XR could launch in July 2026 or earlier under certain circumstances [7]. Both launches occurred on those schedules [6].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Analysis: for Janumet, May 2026 entry came about 32 months before the co-formulation patent expired (January 21, 2029). It came about six months before the salt patent expired. Merck won on both patents and still accepted entry before either one ended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What Happened to Januvia Pricing After the Medicare Negotiation?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          Under the Inflation Reduction Act, the Medicare maximum fair price (MFP) for Januvia is $113 per month. That is 79% below the 2023 wholesale acquisition cost of $527 per month. The first negotiated prices took effect on January 1, 2026 [6]. Generic launches came four months later. A reader who models Januvia revenue must account for both forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Entresto Patent Litigation: From a Written-Description Loss to a Generic Launch<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          Entresto (sacubitril\/valsartan) is the clearest case of a patent win that did not change the entry date. Novartis lost at trial on written description, won on appeal, and still saw generics launch one week after the extended patent ended [1][2][8].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Entresto Patent Timeline<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
          Date<\/th>Event<\/th>Source<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
          Jan 17, 2002<\/td>Priority date of US 8,101,659<\/td>[1]<\/td><\/tr>
          2015<\/td>FDA approves Entresto under an NDA. The ‘659 patent is listed in the Orange Book.<\/td>[1]<\/td><\/tr>
          Oct 2022<\/td>Novartis asserts two patents against MSN in the District of Delaware after MSN files an ANDA.<\/td>[8]<\/td><\/tr>
          Jul 2024<\/td>Judge Richard Andrews denies Novartis’s request for a preliminary injunction.<\/td>[8]<\/td><\/tr>
          Jan 10, 2025<\/td>The Federal Circuit reverses the written-description ruling.<\/td>[1]<\/td><\/tr>
          Jan 15, 2025<\/td>The ‘659 patent expires with its term extension.<\/td>[1]<\/td><\/tr>
          Apr 2025<\/td>The Delaware court orders the FDA to set MSN’s approval date no earlier than July 16, 2025.<\/td>[8]<\/td><\/tr>
          Jun 2025<\/td>Novartis and MSN settle the ‘659 dispute. The ‘918 case continues.<\/td>[8]<\/td><\/tr>
          Jul 15, 2025<\/td>The ‘659 patent ends with pediatric exclusivity.<\/td>[8]<\/td><\/tr>
          Jul 22, 2025<\/td>Novadoz launches the first US generic. Torrent follows two days later.<\/td>[2]<\/td><\/tr>
          Nov 2026<\/td>The ‘918 amorphous solid-form patent is due to expire.<\/td>[8]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

          What Did the Federal Circuit Decide in In re Entresto?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          On January 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit decided the consolidated appeals in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc. (Nos. 2023-2218, -2220, -2221). Judge Lourie wrote the opinion for a panel with Judges Prost and Reyna [1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The district court had held claims 1 to 4 of the ‘659 patent invalid for lack of written description. It had not found them invalid for obviousness or lack of enablement [1]. The Federal Circuit reversed the written-description ruling. It affirmed the other two rulings in Novartis’s favor [1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The court said: “The patent has an adequate written description of what is claimed” [1]. MSN was the only defendant in the appeal. Hetero and Torrent had settled [1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Why Did the Win Not Keep Generics Out Longer?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          The ‘659 patent had one fixed end date. The appeal could restore it. The appeal could not move the end date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Pediatric Exclusivity Added 181 Days<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          The ‘659 patent expired on January 15, 2025 with its term extension [1]. It then received pediatric exclusivity to July 15, 2025 [8]. That adds 181 days, or six months (analysis). The reversal kept the patent in force for that final period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          A Later Patent Did Not Hold the Line<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Novartis also held US 11,096,918, which covers an amorphous solid form. It was due to expire in November 2026, and it was still in dispute in June 2025 [8]. Generic entry came on July 22, 2025 [2]. That date was about 15 to 16 months before the ‘918 expiry (analysis). The sources we reviewed do not say how the court resolved the ‘918 case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          DrugPatentWatch notes that Novartis’s 2023 table listed three more patents expiring between November 2026 and November 2027 [5]. Generic entry came ahead of all of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Did Entresto Prove That Written-Description Attacks Work?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          Not on this record. The district court accepted the attack and the Federal Circuit reversed it. The appeal court said the claims cover valsartan and sacubitril given “in combination,” and not later-found complexes [1]. A generic company that wants to use a written-description attack on a core claim needs a record that shows the claim reaches beyond what the inventors described.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          How Do Courts Now Attack Core Patents? Four Rules That Changed<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          Four appellate-level rulings between May 2023 and June 2026 changed the rules for validity, Orange Book listing, skinny-label inducement, and double patenting. This section groups them by effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Amgen v. Sanofi: Full-Scope Enablement for Genus Claims<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          On May 18, 2023, the US Supreme Court decided Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594. The vote was unanimous. The Court affirmed that two Amgen patents on a genus of antibodies were not enabled under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [9].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The patents covered antibodies that bind PCSK9 and block it from breaking down LDL receptors [9]. The Court rejected Amgen’s “roadmap” and “conservative substitution” approaches as trial-and-error methods [9]. The opinion says: “the more a party claims, the broader the monopoly it demands, the more it must enable” [9].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Analysis: the rule matters most for broad CoM claims. A claim to one named molecule is easier to enable than a claim to a whole class. Brand companies that rely on genus claims for later products face more risk after this ruling. Brand companies with narrow claims on the marketed molecule face less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Allergan v. MSN: Double Patenting Limits After In re Cellect<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          On August 13, 2024, the Federal Circuit decided Allergan v. MSN (No. 24-1061). The court held that a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated for obviousness-type double patenting by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring reference claim with a common priority date [12].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The drug was eluxadoline, the active ingredient in Viberzi. The challenged patent was US 7,741,356. It claims a genus of eight compounds and includes 467 days of patent term adjustment. The reference patents were the ‘011 and ‘709 patents [12].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          This ruling limited In re Cellect. Cellect had said that courts must use expiration dates that include patent term adjustment. Allergan held that this does not mean the first-filed patent in a family falls just because it expires last [12].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Analysis: Allergan helps patent owners. It protects the original CoM patent in a family from a later-filed child patent. Mylan and Micro Labs raised an ODP attack against the Eliquis ‘208 CoM patent [4]. The courts rejected it there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Teva v. Amneal: What Must a Patent Claim to Be Listed in the Orange Book?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          A patent must claim at least the active ingredient to be listed in the Orange Book. The Federal Circuit decided this on December 20, 2024 in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (No. 24-1936) [10].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Teva had listed five inhaler patents for ProAir HFA (albuterol sulfate). The patents claim device parts such as a dose counter and a canister. None recites albuterol sulfate. The court affirmed the order to delist them. Amneal’s antitrust counterclaims survived and stayed in the district court [10].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Analysis: the ruling raises the value of the molecule claim and lowers the value of device-only claims. It reduces one tool that brand companies used to extend delay. A CoM patent still supports a listing. A device patent that does not recite the drug does not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Hikma v. Amarin: Skinny Labels and Induced Infringement<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          On June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. (No. 24-889). The vote was unanimous and Justice Jackson wrote the opinion. The Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin did not plausibly allege induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) [11].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The Court found that Hikma’s skinny label, website statements, and press releases lacked the required affirmative conduct. The question is whether the generic maker itself took affirmative steps to promote infringement [11]. Statements required by law or standard statements of equivalence to the brand drug did not meet that test [11].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What This Means for Method-of-Use Patents<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Analysis: once a CoM patent expires, the brand company often relies on method-of-use patents. A generic company can carve those uses out of its label. After Hikma, a carved-out label is harder to attack as inducement. This shifts negotiating power to generic filers in the period after CoM expiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Eylea and Pavblu: When a Formulation Patent Fails to Block a Biosimilar<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          The Eylea (aflibercept) cases show that the same patent can win against one biosimilar and lose against another. The patent at issue was a formulation patent, not a CoM patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What Happened at the Federal Circuit in October 2024?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          On September 24, 2024, the Northern District of West Virginia denied Regeneron’s request for a preliminary injunction against Amgen. The order was sealed. Regeneron said the court found it unlikely to prove that Amgen would infringe US 11,084,865 [17]. On October 22, 2024, the Federal Circuit denied an injunction that would have blocked an at-risk launch during the appeal (CAFC No. 24-2351) [18][19]. Amgen announced the launch of Pavblu on its Q3 2024 earnings call [19].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Injunctions Granted Against Other Biosimilars<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Earlier courts granted injunctions against Samsung Bioepis, Formycon, and Celltrion. A court also entered a permanent injunction against Biocon, based on infringement findings for the ‘865 patent. The ‘865 patent covers ophthalmic formulations of a VEGF antagonist [18].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Why the Outcomes Differ<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Analysis: a formulation patent depends on what is in the accused product. A CoM patent depends on the molecule, which a biosimilar developer cannot change. Different formulations produce different infringement results. That makes formulation patents less reliable as a barrier than a molecule claim, as the split outcomes show.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Semaglutide Patent Expiry: One Molecule, Several Patent Clocks<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide patents expired in India on March 20, 2026. Chemistry World reports that dozens of generic versions were expected there. It reports that protection in the EU and UK lasts into 2031 and that US protection lasts until at least 2032 [15].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Which Countries Lost Semaglutide Patent Protection in 2026?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          Chemistry World reports that Novo’s patent in Canada lapsed after the company did not pay maintenance fees. It reports that patents in China, Brazil, Turkey, and South Africa expire later in 2026, without exact dates [15].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          How Large Is the Gap Between India and the US?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          If the reported US date of 2032 holds, the gap from the India expiry date is at least about 69 months (analysis: March 20, 2026 to January 1, 2032). The same molecule has a separate patent record in each country. Chemistry World ties the Canadian lapse to unpaid maintenance fees [15].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Analysis: in India, the expiry of the semaglutide patents opened the market. We found no US entry date in the sources reviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What Cuts the Other Way: PTAB Access Narrowed in 2025<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          Not every change favors challengers. The USPTO narrowed access to inter partes review in 2025, and that favors patent owners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Institution Rates Fell From 72% to 35%<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          RPX reports PTAB institution rates for AIA review petitions of 72% in Q3 2024, 68% in Q1 2025, 51% in Q2 2025, and 35% in Q3 2025 [13].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What Changed at the USPTO?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          In February 2025, the USPTO withdrew 2022 guidance that had limited discretionary denials based on parallel litigation. In March 2025, Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart set up a two-stage process. The director first decides discretionary denial requests. In June 2025, she began to deny institution based on “settled expectations” for long-issued patents. On October 17, 2025, Director John Squires announced that the director would handle the whole institution process. The same day, the USPTO proposed a rule. It would require petitioners to stipulate not to raise certain invalidity challenges in parallel litigation [13].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What This Means for Generic Challengers<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Analysis: a lower institution rate pushes challengers toward district court. District court cases take longer and cost more. A patent that survives that path usually leads to settlement. This helps explain why settlement dates, not patent dates, set the entry date in Eliquis and Januvia. The sources we reviewed do not measure that link directly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          A Taxonomy: Five Clocks That Set the Real Generic Entry Date<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          This section gives an original classification. It is this article’s framework. It is not an established industry standard. DrugPatentWatch makes a related point in plain terms: the last barrier to fall sets the real entry date [5].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Definition: Entry-Date Clocks<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          An entry-date clock is the event that fixes the first date a generic or biosimilar can launch. A drug can have several clocks. The latest binding one controls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Clock<\/th>What sets the date<\/th>Example in this article<\/th>Sources<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
          1. Core-patent clock<\/td>Expiry of the core patent plus extensions and pediatric exclusivity<\/td>Entresto: entry 7 days after the extended ‘659 patent ended<\/td>[1][8][2]<\/td><\/tr>
          2. Secondary-patent clock<\/td>A later formulation, salt, or form patent<\/td>Eylea ‘865 formulation patent: injunctions against four other biosimilar developers<\/td>[18]<\/td><\/tr>
          3. Settlement clock<\/td>A negotiated entry date<\/td>Eliquis April 1, 2028; Januvia May 2026<\/td>[3][7]<\/td><\/tr>
          4. Court-order clock<\/td>An injunction or a ruling on infringement or validity<\/td>Pavblu: injunction denied at the district court and the Federal Circuit in 2024<\/td>[17][18]<\/td><\/tr>
          5. Geography clock<\/td>Each country’s own patent and fee record<\/td>Semaglutide in India vs. the US; Eliquis in the EU and Japan<\/td>[15][14]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

          Scenario Analysis: What Sets the Eliquis Date?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          The table below shows four ways to define the Eliquis entry date. Only the settlement row is a documented event. The other rows are bounds that we calculated from the documented patent dates. They are not forecasts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Scenario<\/th>Assumption<\/th>Date<\/th>Months after CoM expiry (our calculation)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
          A<\/td>The CoM patent expiry sets entry<\/td>Nov 21, 2026<\/td>0<\/td><\/tr>
          B<\/td>The CoM patent plus pediatric exclusivity sets entry<\/td>May 21, 2027<\/td>6<\/td><\/tr>
          C<\/td>The settlement date sets entry (documented)<\/td>Apr 1, 2028<\/td>16<\/td><\/tr>
          D<\/td>The formulation patent expiry sets entry<\/td>Feb 24, 2031<\/td>51<\/td><\/tr>
          E<\/td>The formulation patent plus pediatric exclusivity sets entry<\/td>Aug 24, 2031<\/td>57<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

          Dates for scenarios A, B, D, and E come from [4]. The date for scenario C comes from [3] and [14].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Scenario C Is the Only Documented Case<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          The settlement date sits between the CoM patent’s end and the formulation patent’s end. This is the pattern the settlement clock creates. It trades some of the brand company’s potential delay for certainty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What Would Move the Date<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          The 10-K says settled generic entry is subject to additional challenges [14]. A new filer that wins on the formulation patent could move the date. The sources we reviewed do not name such a filer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What This Means for Generic Entry, Biosimilars, and Brand Manufacturers<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          What This Means for Generic Manufacturers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          Generic filers have more ways to attack a patent stack than before. Amgen v. Sanofi raised the bar for broad genus claims [9]. Teva v. Amneal upheld the delisting of five device-only inhaler patents from the Orange Book [10]. Hikma v. Amarin lowered the inducement risk for skinny labels [11]. The PTAB route, however, got narrower [13]. Filers should plan for district court and for settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What This Means for Biosimilar Developers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          The Eylea cases show that outcomes depend on the formulation in each product [18]. A biosimilar developer with a different formulation can have a different infringement result against the same patent. Courts granted injunctions against four developers and denied one against Amgen [17][18][19].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What This Means for Brand Manufacturers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          A CoM patent should anchor the plan, but the plan should not rest on it alone. Entresto shows that a late appeal win can restore a patent without moving its end date [1][8]. Eliquis shows that a court win on both the CoM patent and the formulation patent can lead to a settled date rather than a long block [3][4]. Brand teams should model entry by clock, as in the taxonomy above.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          What This Means for Medical Affairs and Market Access Teams<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          Use date ranges, not single dates. The FDA study links more generic competitors to larger price cuts, from 39% with one competitor to more than 95% with six or more [16]. Price pressure depends on how many filers launch at once. A settlement that lets several filers launch on the same day can create a faster fall than a single launch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          How to Find the Real Generic Entry Date Before You Model It<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          A Four-Step Check<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          Step 1: List Every Patent and Exclusivity on the NDA<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Start with the FDA Orange Book entry for the drug. Record each patent, its expiry date, and each exclusivity. Pediatric exclusivity appears as a separate entry, such as the “PED” suffix shown for the Eliquis and Januvia patents [4][6]. DrugPatentWatch organizes the same Orange Book data by drug, and it publishes analysis of the gap between expiry and entry [5].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Step 2: Read the Company’s Litigation and Settlement Notes<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Look for settlement entry dates in the company’s Form 10-K and Form 10-Q. The Bristol Myers Squibb 10-K gives the 2028 date for Eliquis and the November 2026 EU expiry in a footnote [14]. Merck’s 2022 release gave the May and July 2026 dates for sitagliptin [7].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Step 3: Check the Court Record for Each Open Case<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Check for active appeals, motions to stay, sealed orders, and pending rulings. In Eylea, the district court order was sealed, and the public record came from the parties’ statements [17]. Treat any party’s description of a sealed order as a claim, not as a finding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Step 4: Repeat for Each Major Market<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          Run the same check for the EU and Japan, and for any other major market. The Eliquis and semaglutide cases show that the dates differ by country [14][15].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
            \n
          • The Eliquis CoM patent (US 6,967,208) expires on November 21, 2026. The earliest settled generic entry is April 1, 2028, about 16 months later (analysis based on [3] and [4]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Generic Januvia launched in May 2026. That was about 40 months after Merck’s key compound protection ended in January 2023, and about six months before the salt patent expires (analysis based on [5], [6], and [7]).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • The Federal Circuit reversed the Entresto written-description ruling on January 10, 2025. The first US generic launched on July 22, 2025, 7 days after pediatric exclusivity on the ‘659 patent ended [1][2][8].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Amgen v. Sanofi (May 18, 2023) requires enablement across the full scope of a genus claim [9].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Teva v. Amneal (December 20, 2024) holds that a listed patent must claim at least the active ingredient [10].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Hikma v. Amarin (June 4, 2026) makes inducement claims against skinny labels harder to sustain [11].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Allergan v. MSN (August 13, 2024) protects a first-filed, first-issued patent from a double-patenting attack by its own later-filed family members [12].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • PTAB institution rates fell from 72% in Q3 2024 to 35% in Q3 2025 [13].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Semaglutide patents expired in India on March 20, 2026. Chemistry World reports US protection lasting until at least 2032 [15].<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • FDA research links one generic competitor to a 39% price cut and six or more to a cut above 95% [16].<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

            FAQ<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

            Does a composition-of-matter patent expiry mean generics launch right away?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            No. Pediatric exclusivity, later patents, settlements, and court orders can all push the date later. For Eliquis, the CoM patent expires on November 21, 2026, and the earliest settled generic date is April 1, 2028 [3][4].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            What is a settlement entry date?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            It is a date a brand company agrees to allow a generic launch, in exchange for ending the case. Merck’s sitagliptin settlements allowed launch in May 2026 for Januvia and Janumet, and in July 2026 for Janumet XR, in each case or earlier under certain circumstances [7].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            How much time does pediatric exclusivity add?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            It adds six months to existing patent and exclusivity terms [5]. For the Entresto ‘659 patent, the extension ran from January 15, 2025 to July 15, 2025, or 181 days [1][8].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Can a brand win on appeal and still lose the market?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            Yes. Novartis won the Entresto appeal on January 10, 2025. A generic launched on July 22, 2025, after the patent and its pediatric exclusivity ended [1][2][8].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            What did Amgen v. Sanofi change for patent owners?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            It held that a patent must enable the full scope of what it claims. The Court rejected the “roadmap” and “conservative substitution” approaches, and held two Amgen antibody genus patents not enabled [9].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            What is a skinny label, and what did Hikma v. Amarin decide?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            A skinny label omits uses that a patent still covers. On June 4, 2026, the Supreme Court held unanimously that Amarin did not plausibly allege induced infringement, because the generic maker’s statements lacked the required affirmative conduct [11].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Can a brand company list a device patent in the Orange Book?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            Not if the patent does not claim at least the active ingredient. The Federal Circuit decided this on December 20, 2024, in a case about five inhaler patents for ProAir HFA [10].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            How much do prices fall when generics enter?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            FDA research on products with initial generic entry from 2015 through 2017 found price reductions of 39% with one generic competitor and more than 95% with six or more, on an average manufacturer price basis [16].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Is the PTAB still a practical route for generic challengers?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            It is harder to use. RPX reports that the institution rate fell from 72% in Q3 2024 to 35% in Q3 2025, and that the USPTO proposed a rule in October 2025 that would add limits on parallel invalidity challenges [13].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            When will generic semaglutide launch in the US?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            The sources we reviewed give no US launch date. Chemistry World reports that US protection lasts until at least 2032, and that India’s semaglutide patents expired on March 20, 2026 [15].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            References<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
              \n
            1. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (2025, January 10). In re Entresto (Sacubitril\/Valsartan) Patent Litigation; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc.<\/em>, Nos. 2023-2218, 2023-2220, 2023-2221 [Opinion]. https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/opinions-orders\/23-2218.OPINION.1-10-2025_2448627.pdf<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            2. Patenta. (n.d.). The drug patent cliff, 2026 to 2028: What company filings say about Januvia, Eliquis, Keytruda and more. https:\/\/patenta.ai\/blog\/drug-patent-cliff-2026-2028\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            3. Pfizer Inc. (2021, September 3). Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance pleased with decision by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [Press release]. https:\/\/www.pfizer.com\/news\/announcements\/bristol-myers-squibb-pfizer-alliance-pleased-decision-us-court-appeals-federal<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            4. PharmaDossier. (2026). Eliquis generic: Why US entry is delayed to April 2028 despite IRA cuts. https:\/\/pharmadossier.com\/blog\/eliquis-generic-apixaban-us-entry-delay<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            5. DrugPatentWatch. (2026, October 15). Patent expiration isn’t generic entry: How to find the date that counts. https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/patent-expiration-isnt-generic-entry-how-to-find-the-date-that-counts\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            6. PharmaDossier. (2026, June 21). Sitagliptin’s May 2026 generic launch and Januvia’s IRA MFP termination. https:\/\/pharmadossier.com\/blog\/sitagliptin-generic-launch-ira-negotiated-price<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            7. Merck & Co., Inc. (2022, September 22). U.S. District Court rules in favor of Merck in sitagliptin phosphate patent lawsuit [Press release]. https:\/\/www.merck.com\/news\/u-s-district-court-rules-in-favor-of-merck-in-sitagliptin-phosphate-patent-lawsuit\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            8. IP Fray. (2025, June 17). Novartis and MSN settle part of chronic heart failure patent fight, but key patent remains. https:\/\/ipfray.com\/novartis-and-msn-settle-part-of-chronic-heart-failure-patent-fight-but-key-patent-remains\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            9. Greenberg Traurig, LLP. (2023, May). Supreme Court reinforces Patent Act’s enablement requirement in unanimous decision (Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023)). https:\/\/www.gtlaw.com\/en\/insights\/2023\/5\/supreme-court-reinforces-patent-acts-enablement-requirement-unanimous-decision-sanofi<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            10. Cooley LLP. (2025, January 2). Teva v. Amneal ruling interprets Orange Book listing statute, affirms delisting of device patents. https:\/\/www.cooley.com\/news\/insight\/2025\/2025-01-02-teva-v-amneal-ruling-interprets-orange-book-listing-statute-affirms-delisting-of-device-patents<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            11. American Intellectual Property Law Association. (2026, June 4). Supreme Court issues unanimous decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. https:\/\/www.aipla.org\/detail\/news\/2026\/06\/04\/supreme-court-issues-unanimous-decision-in-hikma-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc.-v.-amarin-pharma–inc<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            12. Cooley LLP. (2024, August 26). Federal Circuit limits In re Cellect, preserving PTA for first-filed, first-issued patents within a family. https:\/\/www.cooley.com\/news\/insight\/2024\/2024-08-26-federal-circuit-limits-in-re-cellect-preserving-pta-for-first-filed-first-issued-patents-within-a-family<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            13. RPX Corporation. (2025, October 22). Institution rates dropped further as Stewart continued discretionary denial expansion. https:\/\/www.rpxcorp.com\/data-byte\/institution-rates-dropped-further-as-stewart-continued-discretionary-denial-expansion\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            14. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. (2026). Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/14272\/000001427226000004\/bmy-20251231.htm<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            15. Chemistry World. (2026). India’s generic semaglutide surge. https:\/\/www.chemistryworld.com\/opinion\/indias-generic-semaglutide-surge\/4023244.article<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            16. Conrad, R., & Lutter, R. (2019, December). Generic competition and drug prices: New evidence linking greater generic competition and lower generic drug prices<\/em>. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https:\/\/fda.gov\/media\/133509\/download<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            17. Goodwin Procter LLP. (2024, September 25). Preliminary injunction denied against Amgen in aflibercept BPCIA litigation. https:\/\/goodwinlaw.com\/en\/insights\/blogs\/2024\/09\/preliminary-injunction-denied-against-amgen-in-aflibercept-bpcia-litigation<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            18. Pearce IP. (2024, October 22). Regeneron fails to injunct Amgen’s US aflibercept biosimilar for second time, Amgen to launch at risk. https:\/\/www.pearceip.law\/2024\/10\/22\/regeneron-fails-to-injunct-amgens-us-aflibercept-biosimilar-for-second-time-amgen-to-launch-at-risk\/<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            19. Mondaq. (2024, November 18). Amgen launches Pavblu as the first Eylea biosimilar in the US. https:\/\/www.mondaq.com\/unitedstates\/patent\/1545912\/amgen-launches-pavblu%e2%84%a2-as-the-first-eylea%c2%ae-biosimilar-in-the-us<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              Novartis won its Entresto appeal on January 10, 2025. The Federal Circuit reversed a ruling that had invalidated the key […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":40066,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40065","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights"],"modified_by":"DrugPatentWatch","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40065","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40065"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40065\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40082,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40065\/revisions\/40082"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40066"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drugpatentwatch.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}