Hatch-Waxman Watch: Safe Harbor Edition

by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact

Last week, two district courts dispensed with lawsuits based on the protections afforded by the safe harbor provision of the Hatch-Waxman statute.  Both of the cases relied heavily on the Federal Circuit case Momenta Pharm. v. Amphastar Pharm., 686 F.3d 1348 (2012).  In fact, one of the cases was the Momenta case back at the Massachusetts District Court.  The other case was in the Southern District of New York, and in that case, the dismissal occurred at the pleadings stage.  Because both cases looked to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), it is useful to review this provision, which reads:

It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention . . . solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products.

The Federal Circuit Momenta case interpreted this language broadly, stating that the "language unambiguously applies to submissions under any federal law, providing that the law 'regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs.'"  Therefore, according to current Federal Circuit jurisprudence, the safe harbor is not limited to pre-approval activities (see Momenta); it is not limited to information that is actually submitted to the FDA, provided the FDA requires that records be maintained for possible inspection (see Momenta); and it is OK if the information has alternative uses, such as for fund raising or other business purposes (see Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).  It is with this understanding that the lower courts proceeded.

Momenta Pharma., Inc. v. Amphastar Pharma., Inc., C.A. No. 11-11681-NMG

Momento PharmaceuticalsLast week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a summary judgment motion of non-infringement in favor of Amphastar (see Memorandum & Order).  This case involved generic versions of Aventis' product Lovenox (enoxaparin).  However, the patent-in-suit was owned by Momenta, another generic company, and related to methods for comparing generic enoxaparin to the branded version.  As a reminder, the procedural posture in front of the Federal Circuit was as an appeal of a preliminary injunction.  Because the Court found that the alleged infringing activity was protected by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), it vacated the injunction.  In fact, the Federal Circuit suggested that "the district court may want to consider whether Momenta's admission . . . makes this case amenable to summary judgment of non-infringement."  Nevertheless, the lower court stayed the case pending a petition for en banc appeal, and a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, another safe harbor case.  After both of those petitions were denied, the District Court lifted the stay, and Amphastar moved for summary judgment the next day.

AmphastarMomenta's position regarding whether the safe-harbor provision applied in this case apparently did not change significantly.  First, it argued that the FDA did not mandate the use of its patented test, and therefore its use by Amphastar was entirely voluntary.  However, as the District Court pointed out, the Federal Circuit "explicitly" held that the safe harbor "'does not mandate the use of a non-infringing alternative when one exists."  Second, Momenta argued that the required record-keeping was not a "submission," and therefore fell outside the statute.  However, again, the Court noted the Federal Circuit's "express" holding that the FDA's requirement for maintaining records that might be inspected was sufficient to satisfy this requirement.  Finally, Momenta alleged that the use of this information during manufacturing was for commercial purposes, and therefore not "solely" for uses related to satisfying Federal Law.  However, the Federal Circuit found this argument to not be consistent with precedent, citing the Abtox case.  Therefore, the Massachusetts court simply applied the holding of Momenta to grant the summary judgment motion.

Momenta also argued that Amphastar was liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which states in part: "Whoever without authority imports into the United States or offers to sell, sells, or uses within the United States a product which is made by a process patented in the United States shall be liable as an infringer, if the importation, offer to sell, sale, or use of the product occurs during the term of such process patent."  This section of the statute is generally directed to importation of a product made by a U.S. patented method practiced abroad, and in this case, there was no allegation that Amphastar manufactured the drug product outside the U.S.  Instead, Momenta argued that the language of the statute does not require that the patented process be practiced inside or outside the U.S.  This ignores, however, another section of that provision that states it only applies when "there is no adequate remedy under this title for infringement."  Because 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) applies to the making or use of a patented invention within the U.S., the Court reasoned that 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) does not apply in this case.

At about the same time that Amphastar filed its Summary Judgment motion, Teva filed a motion to dismiss a similar action based on the same patents.  In almost an identical opinion, the Massachusetts District Court also dismissed this case (see Memoradum & Order).

Teva Pharma. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Case No. 09 Civ. 10112 (KBF)

Teva #2The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York also dispensed of two cases last week because of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor provision (Mylan was defendant in the second case), but this time both cases were at the pleading stage.  Interestingly, Momenta was a co-defendant with Sandoz.  Therefore, the parties of this case were basically a mirror image of the Momenta v. Teva litigation that was dismissed in Massachusetts.  In other words, both parties were able to take advantage of the safe-harbor provision in the different litigations (or both parties were burned by it).

Sandoz #2The products in question were generic versions of glatiramer acetate, which is sold under the name Copaxone to reduce the frequency of relapses in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.  Glatiramer acetate is a mixture of polypeptides, and much like with Lovenox/enoxaparin in the Momenta case, the ANDA filers needed to demonstrate that their active ingredient was the same as the branded product.  Specifically, the ANDA filers needed to show that the polypeptides in their products have the same molecular weight characteristics as those in Copaxone.  Teva is the exclusive licensee to four patents that claim polypeptide markers and methods for using these markers to measure these molecular weight characteristics.

Because the fact pattern was so similar to Momenta, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  The District Court did not, however, start with Momenta, but rather it underwent a similar analysis as the Momenta court.  First, it started with the text of statute, and it found the meaning to be plain and unambiguous.  As a result, the District Court did not need to consult the legislative history.  If it did, it might have discovered that the intent of Congress was that the statute was only meant to apply to pre-approval activity, as Chief Judge Radar explained in detail in the Momenta dissent.

The District Court then compared the case to Momenta, and found that the two cases had "striking similarities."  The Court concluded that the holding of Momenta and its fact pattern support dismissal in this case.  "Momenta allows for the elective use of patented technology as long as it serves to produce information required under federal law."  Teva had not alleged that Sandoz or Mylan activity was any different.

Instead, Teva attempted to differentiate this case by relying on another Federal Circuit case, Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc., 536 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  In that case, Innovasystems was making and selling a product that could be used by generic drug manufactures to calibrate drug delivery devices.  Innovasystems had argued that when its product was used by its customers (the generic drug manufacturers), they were protected by the safe harbor provision, and therefore Innovasystems should also be protected.  The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, and pointed out that the "patented invention" of Innovasystems was not the type of "patented invention" to which § 271(e)(1) refers.  It was important that Innovasystems was selling the patented invention to others, and not developing information for submission to the FDA.  The District Court concluded that the present case was analogous to Momenta, and that Proveris was inapposite to the present facts.  Therefore,  the Court held, "without an exclusion for plaintiffs' patented product not being the type of "invention" that can fall within § 271(e)(1), plaintiffs failed to state a claim" for the relevant counts in the complaints (see Opinion & Order).

 

Written by:

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
Contact
more
less

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.