I am sure that you are right that Servier has acquired the patents to add to their enforcement strategy.  In some countries you can still get an ex parte interim injunction – so merely having another patent could be well worthwhile.

This is a double edged sword for Servier – they will use greater resources to enforce them, so the patents are now more concerning to other generics than they were in the hands of Lupin (who had much less to gain by asserting them).  However, Lupin would have taken a different approach to drafting and prosecuting them and that is where generic competitors will no doubt find some very useful material.

Deals between generics – I can see some strategic merit in a collection of them with good IP on a product forming an alliance rather than the much blander cross-licenses that occur today.  Will be interesting to see if they take it up.

I agree that it is quite interesting to watch fluctuations of company and asset values based on 3rd party IP litigation.  Planning for this and optimising it should really be a core component of a good IP Strategy.

As we can see, some companies have launched Perindopril where the revocation of the alpha polymorph patent allows, suggesting that this may happen in other countries, so perhaps Servier are strengthening their armoury by using weaker patents/ applications in the hands of a financially more capable company.  i.e. its not what you’ve got, it’s how you use it…

Your point about generic/generic deals is also very valid, although many seem to just cross-license rather than acquire the patents so maximise the market for each party.  On the other extreme some smaller companies are acquired on the strength of one key patent that may allow generic access for one product, blocking all others.

It’s amazing how the value of a company and its assets can turn on the basis of a third party patent litigation…