On Friday, January 13, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sandoz (Nos. 15-1039 & 15-1195). The Supreme Court originally deferred its decision on the parties’ certiorari petitions in order to consider the Solicitor General’s views. See prior post. On December 7, the Solicitor General filed a briefing recommending that certiorari be granted.

Responding to the Supreme Court’s request for its views, see prior post, the Solicitor General recently recommended granting certiorari and reversing some of the Federal Circuit’s key holdings in Amgen v. Sandoz (Nos. 15-1039 & 15-1195). 

The case involves issues central to the application of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009

The Supreme Court has been asked to review whether the safe harbor established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) encompasses a generic drug manufacturer’s bioequivalence testing performed only as a condition of maintaining FDA approval. Section 271(e)(1) exempts certain pharmaceutical-related activities from patent infringement, stating that “[i]t shall not be an act of infringement to make, use,

On October 5, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review the case Bowman v. Monsanto Co., Docket No. 11-796 (USSC 2012). The high court will be taking on the question of patent exhaustion in seeds, specifically Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds. Monsanto sells the seeds, which grow into plants resistant to the herbicide glyphosate,

The August 2012 decision in Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has expanded the “safe harbor” provisions of Hatch-Waxman, with serious implications for the pharma and biotech industries.

Hatch-Waxman contains a “safe harbor” provision for the use of patented inventions “reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates

On April 17, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, holding that a generic drug manufacturer may file a counterclaim to force correction of an overbroad use code that encompasses unclaimed methods of using the drug at issue. In interpreting the text of

The California Supreme Court will review the legality of so-called “pay-for-delay” settlements, whereby brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers pay other companies to delay release of a generic version of a patented drug. Although the California Supreme Court will be making its determination under state law, a decision finding all such agreements illegal would have a national impact.

The “pay-for-delay” agreement at issue here settled a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Bayer AG and its subsidiary after Barr Laboratories, Inc., sought to market a generic version of the antibiotic ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, commonly known as Cipro. Under the terms of the 1997 agreement, Barr agreed not to market a generic version of Cipro until after expiration of U.S. Patent No. 4,670,444, in return for which Bayer paid Barr almost $400 million. The ’444 patent, which claims the ciprofloxacin hydrochloride molecule, expired in 2003.


Continue Reading

Today the USPTO published in the Federal Register its proposed rulemaking with regard to implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA). The proposed rules cover Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, and a plethora of other AIA implementation issues. Interested parties have 60 days to comment on the proposed rules. Links to the Federal Register entries

The Hatch-Waxman Act, a federal law passed in 1984, was designed to streamline the process for bringing generic drugs to market. Under the law, generic drug manufacturers may file an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with the FDA toward approval for generic versions of already-approved drugs.
Such filings are founded on bioequivalence studies instead of clinical studies. In the filings, generic manufactures also must certify that the listed drug is not patented, that the patent has expired or that the patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the generic drug.

Continue Reading