How is orphan drug exclusivity affected when the FDA-approved use for an orphan drug is arguably narrower than the treatment of the rare disease it was designated for?

By way of background, a sponsor can obtain orphan drug exclusivity when the FDA approves an application for a drug that has first been designated under 21 U.S.C. § 360bb of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) for a “rare disease or condition.”  Id. § 360cc(a).  Except in any of three statutorily prescribed circumstances (§§ 360cc(b), (c)), the FDA cannot approve another application for the “same drug” for “the same disease or condition” for seven years after the first approval.


Continue Reading In the Orphan Drug Approval Race, Winner Takes All? Ramifications of Catalyst Pharms. v. Becerra

On August 5, 2021, the Federal Circuit withdrew its October 2020 opinion in GSK v. Teva, summarized in this post on induced infringement of method-of-treatment claims, and issued an opinion that reiterated the prior holding but sought to clarify its reasoning. GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva. Specifically, the majority stated that a generic manufacturer’s touting of AB equivalence to a brand drug is generally not evidence of intent to induce infringement—but in the specific facts of this case it did support inducement, because the Court found ample evidence tying claim limitations to statements in Teva’s label even though the patented method was omitted as a distinct indication. The Court also found that Teva’s advertising statements regarding treating “heart failure” evidenced intent to induce physicians to prescribe the drug to treat CHF.
Continue Reading GSK v. Teva: Federal Circuit Issues New Opinion Analyzing Induced Infringement

Over the last seven years there has been commotion in Obviousness-type Double Patenting (“ODP”) practice. One of the latest cases to spur a considerable amount of interest is Mitsubishi Tanabe Corp. v. Sandoz, Inc., which is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). While a detailed review of this case is not the intent of this post, as a fair number of practitioners have provided insightful coverage, an historical overview is helpful for framing the decision and issues that need clarification from the CAFC.

Continue Reading Why Obviousness-type Double Patent Analysis Isn’t Obvious

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued “Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy” (the “Executive Order”). The Executive Order was billed by the White House as “historic” and comparable to Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting and Franklin Roosevelt’s “supercharged antitrust enforcement”. Asserting that a “fair, open, and competitive marketplace has long been the cornerstone of the American economy,” the Executive Order sets forth 72 initiatives across over a dozen federal agencies.

Continue Reading President Biden’s Executive Order on Competition Signals Potential Changes Affecting Patents in the Healthcare Sector

Nearly seven years after the landmark Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, subject matter eligibility for patent claims under 35 U.S.C § 101 remains a moving target. In Alice, the Court found claims for a computerized escrow arrangement ineligible for patenting because they were directed to the abstract idea of “intermediated settlement” and did not recite an inventive concept that could impart eligibility under Section 101. While the Alice case focused on a software invention, a few recent lower court decisions suggest that, in certain circumstances, medical device patents may not be immune from similar patent eligibility challenges.

Continue Reading Federal Circuit Invalidates Device Patent As Directed to an Abstract Idea

The presidential administration may have changed, but the legislative branch remains focused on issues relating to patient access to drugs. One of these efforts includes P.L. 117-8, the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act of 2021. Formerly S.164, it was introduced in the Senate in February 2021 and sped through the House to enactment on April 23, less than three months later.

Continue Reading “Advancing Education on Biosimilars”: Game Changer or More of the Same?

Reference product sponsors often obtain patents claiming methods of using a known drug to treat a condition or disease. Because generic and biosimilar developers typically do not treat patients, and thus do not directly infringe the claims, plaintiffs must sue under a theory of induced infringement—i.e., that the generic or biosimilar developer recommended, encouraged, or promoted a patented use for the drug. Demonstrating induced infringement most often involves the label of the defendant’s product, but increasingly may involve non-label evidence such as the defendant’s press releases, brochures, product catalogs, advertisements, and statements to the FDA, doctors, and investors. This non-label evidence is likely to be especially significant in the biologic context.

Continue Reading Induced Infringement of Method of Treatment Claims: Looking to the Label and Beyond

The Ensuring Innovation Act recently became law after passing in the Senate with unanimous, bipartisan support. According to one Senator, the intent of the legislation was to “close loopholes to prevent awarding market exclusivity to products that do not present true innovation and unduly delay cheaper generic from entering the market.” Is this much ado about nothing, or much to be concerned about?

Continue Reading The Impact of the Ensuring Innovation Act on NCE Exclusivity

When a pharmaceutical company withdraws a product from the market, the basis for the withdrawal can affect whether a competitor can commercialize a generic version of that product. A generic cannot be approved if, in the FDA’s view, the product was withdrawn for “safety and effectiveness” reasons.

But how does the FDA reach that conclusion? A newly filed case may shed some light on the Agency’s decision-making process.


Continue Reading Generic Competition for Withdrawn Drug Products

In the recent case of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s invalidation of certain of Amgen’s antibody patent claims, concluding that the claims were not “enable[d]” under 35 U.S.C. § 112. This decision establishes that it is more difficult to satisfy the enablement requirement for antibody claims that use functional language to describe the antibody. (The court granted Amgen’s motion to extend the deadline for filing a petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc until April 14, 2021. See id., Order (March 8, 2021).)

Continue Reading CAFC Tightens Enablement Standard for Functional Claiming of Antibodies