FDLI s IP Throughout the Drug Development Lifecycle



Similar documents
Guidance for Industry 180-Day Exclusivity When Multiple ANDAs Are Submitted on the Same Day

NJIPLA s 25th Annual Pharmaceutical / Chemical Patent Practice Update First Applicant Generic Exclusivity and Forfeiture Thereof.

Overcoming Restriction Requirements On Pharma Patents

Case 1:15-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 2:12-cv GMN-GWF Document 1 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 7

First to File and Beyond: Paragraph IV Business Strategies

Case 8:09-cv MRP-MLG Document 8 Filed 10/27/2009 Page 1 of 14

You Know It Is Coming: Preparing for the Paragraph IV Letter

Warren D.Woessner William F. Prout

Pay-for-Delay: How Drug Company Pay-Offs Cost Consumers Billions. An FTC Staff Study January Federal Trade Commission ftc.

Testimony of. J. Douglas Richards Partner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Patent Litigation Strategy: The Impact of the America Invents Act and the New Post-grant Patent Procedures

Reverse-payment patent settlements in the pharmaceutical industry: An analysis of US antitrust law and EU competition law

Strengthening (or Weakening) Patent Protection in the United States

Settlement Traps for the Unwary

Case: 1:10-cv BYP Doc #: 48 Filed: 11/12/10 1 of 10. PageID #: <pageid> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Legal FAQ: Introduction to Patent Litigation

The Appellate Mandate: What It Is and Why It Matters By Jennifer L. Swize

New Chemical Entity Exclusivity Determinations for Certain Fixed- Combination Drug Products

Bad Faith: Choice of Law Matters

Case 1:14-cv JEI-KMW Document 43 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 254

Ecug!2<25.ex TDY!!!Fqewogpv!9!!!Hkngf! !!!Rcig!2!qh!6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DOUBLE PATENTING CONSIDERATIONS by Mark Cohen

More Uncertainty: What s The Difference Between a Claim and a Theory?

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:12-cv ADS-AKT Document 88-1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 56 of 64 PageID #: 1018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Chapter 307. (Senate Bill 585) Commercial Law Patent Infringement Assertions Made in Bad Faith

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

Patent Reissue. Frequently Asked Questions

: : : : : : : : A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

Pharmaceutical development is an expensive, time

Federal Jurisdiction in a Lemon Law World

The 505(b)(2) Drug Development Pathway:

2:09-cv LPZ-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 06/24/10 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 3:15-cv MLC-LHG Document 1 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 1

T.C. Memo UNITED STATES TAX COURT. RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Case 1:11-cv AKH Document 1 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 8 SPRINT UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff, Defendant.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Case 6:12-cv RWS Document Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: Exhibit G

FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT LITIGATION

BEFORE THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Case 2:07-cv SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal

Following is a restatement of the primary duties of the six paralegals you describe:

F I L E D August 5, 2013

FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 55 Filed: 08/16/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:<pageid>

Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot

F I L E D July 17, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. vs. : No. 3:04CV817(WWE) Ruling on Defendant s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 10]

ITC Section 337 Investigations: Patent Infringement Claims

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TRANSFER OF PATENT RIGHTS

DOL Whistleblower Rule Will Have Far-Reaching Effects

Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident

J.A.Kemp & Co. London. Munich. Oxford

Case 2:13-cv ES-JAD Document Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 4861 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:14-cv DGC Document 38 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

The Lead Compound Analysis for Chemical Obviousness: USPTO v. the Courts

The trademark lawyer as brand manager

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CV Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Chapter 11

CLIENT MEMORANDUM. I. The Basics. June 18, 2013

Case 5:06-cv XR Document 20 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules. Inter Partes Review

Pay-For-Delay Settlements in the Wake of Actavis

This case involves a dispute over the ownership of two domain names:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PETITION TO QUASH CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND DATED JULY 24,2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Premarket Approval Applications (PMAs), Product Development Protocols (PDPs), and Humanitarian Device Exemptions

Transcription:

FDLI s IP Throughout the Drug Development Lifecycle Post-Marketing IP Protection & Enforcement: View From the Generic Side Janine A. Carlan Arent Fox LLP Topics To Be Discussed Hatch-Waxman Process Orange Book ( OB ) Patent Strategies Paragraph IV ( PIV ) Notice Letter Authorized Generics Mining Data for Patentable Inventions 1

Hatch-Waxman Process Timeline: AFF Letter Received from FDA Within 20 Days: File PIV Notice Letter Within 45 Days: Suit by Brand Company - triggers 30-month stay of ANDA approval - calculated from date LAST recipient receives the PIV Notice Letter [21 CFR 314.95(f)] - District Court decision - Federal Circuit decision Hatch-Waxman Process (cont d) Goals: - Market entry - 180-day exclusivity [21 USC 355(j)(5)(B)(iv)] 2

OB Patent Strategies PI-PIV Certifications: Under 21 USC 355(j)(2)(A)(vii): (I) No patent information filed, (II) Patent expired, (III) Wait for patent to expire, or (IV) Patent is invalid or not infringed OB Patent Strategies (cont d) Section viii Statement: An abbreviated application for a new drug [ANDA] shall contain-... (viii) if with respect to the listed drug referred to in clause (i) information was filed under subsection (b) or (c) for a method of use patent which does not claim a use for which the applicant is seeking approval under this subsection, a statement that the method of use patent does not claim such a use. [21 USC 355(j)(2)(A) (emphasis added)] 3

OB Patent Strategies (cont d) AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. Apotex Corp., 669 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) No viable claim for infringement under 35 USC 271(e)(2) in view of the section viii statement : It shall be an act of infringement to submit--(a) an application... for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent... if the purpose of such submission is to obtain approval under such Act to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of a drug... claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent before the expiration of such patent. [35 USC 271(e)(2)] OB Patent Strategies (cont d) Which patents to challenge? First generation patents Compound (API) patent First medical use Second generation patents Formulation patent (extended release, stabilizer, unique tablet configuration, etc.) Polymorph Second (newly-approved) medical use 4

OB Patent Strategies (cont d) Which patents to challenge? First generation patents Compound or first (only?) medical use patents: most difficult to challenge invalidity only, generic must infringe Second generation patents Formulation patent or polymorph non-infringement via design-around invalidity via obvious design choice Second (newly-approved) medical use section viii statement OB Patent Strategies (cont d) With increasing generic competition: Challenges come earlier in product life cycle Challenges frequently occur on NCE-1 date (after 4 th year of FDA approval) Possibility of forfeiture increases 5

OB Patent Strategies (cont d) NCE-1 challengers must consider forfeiture provision of FFDCA First ANDA applicant must market within 75 days of: (a) Appellate court decision in ANDA applicant s favor; (b) Settlement finding patent not infringed or invalid; or (c) Patent withdrawal OB Patent Strategies (cont d) Hypothetical: Which patents to challenge? 1 Compound patent (late 2019) 2 Formulation patents (2021 & 2023) NCE-1 date June 1, 2012 7½ year rule stay ANDA approval until early 2016 Trial court decision 2016? Fed. Cir. decision late 2017? Forced to challenge compound patent 6

OB Patent Strategies (cont d) Choose patent challenges in accordance with long-term business objectives Avoid potential forfeiture situations Seek legal advice on the timeline PIV Notice Letter Requirements for providing notice Statute: 21 USC 355(j)(2)(B) Regulations: 21 CFR 314.94-95 & 314.101 The Applicant shall include in the [ANDA] a statement that the applicant will give notice.... [35 USC 355(j)(2)(B)(i) and (iii)] 7

PIV Notice Letter (cont d) Minimum Requirements: (i) state that the ANDA contains bioavailability or bioequivalence data; and (ii) include a detailed statement of the factual and legal basis of the opinion of the applicant that the patent is invalid or will not be infringed. [21 USC 355 (j)(2)(b)(iv)] PIV Notice Letter (cont d) Content Controversies: What is sufficiently detailed? Fewer facts, detail and argument Narrows potential discovery Does not reveal litigation strategy May risk allegation of baseless certification More facts, detail, argument Broadens potential discovery Coextensiveness with litigation strategy closely scrutinized May increase likelihood of settlement 8

PIV Notice Letter (cont d) Yamanouchi Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., 231 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2000) No prima facie case of invalidity presented Attorney s fees awarded Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) No reasonable basis to claim patent invalid Notice letters did not match invalidity & unenforceability theories PIV Notice Letter (cont d) Offer of Confidential Access (OCA) ANDA applicant alleges non-infringement as a basis of a PIV certification MUST provide OCA to ANDA to preserve the right to file a Declaratory Judgment Action Not required to provide samples or other supporting documents 9

PIV Notice Letter (cont d) Recipients of notice: NDA Holder Listed on FDA website and in Orange Book and Patent Owner(s) Listed on USPTO assignment database http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/?db=pat Timing PIV Notice Letter (cont d) Newly-filed ANDA No later than 20 days after postmark date on FDA s AFF letter stating the ANDA has been filed [21 USC 355(j)(2)(B)(ii)(I)] Filed = FDA has made a threshold determination that the [ANDA] is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. [21 CFR 314.101(b)(1)] Existing ANDA At the time a supplement/amendment is submitted [21 USC 355(j)(2)(B)(ii)(II) & 21 CFR 314.95(d)] 10

PIV Notice Letter (cont d) Timing Controversies: How early? No earlier than postmark date on FDA s AFF letter SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc. v. Mutual Pharm. Co. Inc., 552 F.Supp.2d 500 (EDPA 2008) What is at the same time for existing ANDAs? Immediate notice reduces risk that another applicant will obtain exclusivity Purepac Pharm. Co. v. Thompson, 354 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2004) PIV Notice Letter (cont d) How to send Notice? U.S. Postal Service, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested Use tracking to obtain receipt information as proof of delivery Courier Advance permission required from FDA 11

Authorized Generics A brand company s product repackaged and marketed as a generic through a subsidiary or third party Timing: Typically at end of NDA holder s exclusivity Can compete directly against a generic during the 180-day exclusivity Examples: Provigil (modafinil), Geodon (ziprasidone) & Lipitor (atorvastatin) Authorized Generics (cont d) v. Hypothetical revenues in millions 6 months after generic entry in a $500 million product [Glass, Authorized Generics, Nature Reviews 4: 953-4 (2005)] 12

Mining Data for Patentable Inventions Formulation patents Dosage form patents API & formulation method patents Thank You Janine A. Carlan 202.715.8506 carlan.janine@arentfox.com Arent Fox LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5339 13