Hatch-Waxman ANDA

News & Analysis as of

Cephalon and Teva's $1.2 Billion Consent Order with the FTC: Is it Really a Harbinger of Things to Come?

On June 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a consent order (the “Consent Order”) between the Federal Trade Commission and defendants Cephalon, Inc. and its parent, Teva...more

New Judicial Interpretations on Scope of Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor

The Federal Circuit recently provided additional clarity about the scope of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor. In Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the appellate court sharpened the line between...more

FTC’s $1.2 Billion Disgorgement Settlement With Cephalon: Heightened Scrutiny of Hatch-Waxman Settlements

On May 28, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the settlement of its 2008 lawsuit against Cephalon, Inc. (now owned by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.), which alleged that Cephalon had made “reverse...more

Applicability of the Entire Market Value Rule in Hatch-Waxman Cases - AstraZeneca AB, et al. v. Apotex Corp., et al.

Addressing damages issues in the Hatch-Waxman context, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provided important guidance regarding the application of the entire market value rule to pharmaceutical sales, and the...more

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

The Hatch Waxman statute created a safe-harbor provision, found at 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), that allows ANDA filers and others to practice patented inventions without fear of infringement liability, provided the acts are...more

Lessons in Personal Jurisdiction for BPCIA Litigants after the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler

An emerging issue in Hatch-Waxman litigation – and potentially under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) – is the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct.746 (2014), on...more

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of a Disclaimed Patent Warranted in Hatch-Waxman - Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

Addressing the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal for lack of case or controversy of an action seeking...more

Amgen Receives No Help from the FDA -- A Biosimilar Update

Near the end of last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") denied a citizen petition filed by Amgen in which it requested that action be taken to ensure that biosimilar applicants comply with the disclosure and...more

Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Can a Federal district court ever have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement for a disclaimed patent? Of course, the Federal Circuit explained this week in the Apotex Inc. v....more

Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Senju PharmaceuticalEarlier this month, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court judgment of obviousness in ANDA litigation under the Hatch Waxman Act having a long provenance of earlier litigation, in Senju...more

Court Denies Generic Drug Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss Hatch-Waxman Patent Infringement Action on Jurisdiction Grounds

On March 12, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana joined the District of Delaware and Eastern District of Texas as the first courts to consider a generic drug manufacturer’s motion to dismiss...more

Direct Purchasers and End Payors Accuse Brand Pharma of Delaying Generic Entry

Americans want access to inexpensive pharmaceutical drugs. This demand must be balanced with the fact that brand-name, innovator pharmaceutical companies typically invest tremendous resources to research and develop new...more

Hatch-Waxman Watch: Personal Jurisdiction Edition

Is the ability to obtain personal jurisdiction against an ANDA filer for a Hatch-Waxman-type litigation going to become exceedingly more difficult? In the past, jurisdiction against such a defendant was often predicated on...more

Comments Sought by December 19th on the FDA's Proposed Criteria for "First Generic" Applications

This morning, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) opened a public docket and requested comments on its proposed criteria for expedited review of "first generic" Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs). The comment period...more

Takeda Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Mylan Inc.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: The issue here concerns whether the owner of a pharmaceutical patent may simultaneously assert a claim for infringement under § 271(e)(2), and a claim pursuant to the Declaratory...more

Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Plaintiff filed suit alleging infringement of claims 1, 16, 36, and 37 of each of the patents-in-suit. The patents-in-suit all claim pharmaceutical compositions containing propofol...more

Hospira, Inc. v. Burwell

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Precedex is commonly used as a sedative. Specifically, the FDA has approved Precedex for two uses: (i) sedation of initially intubated and mechanically ventilated patients during...more

Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc.

Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: Apotex appealed the district court’s finding that the ’556 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The ’556 patent describes a method for making moexipril tablets used...more

Silence of ANDA with Respect to a Claim Limitation Does Not Constitute Infringement

Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc. - In Hatch-Waxman litigation that involved Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) that were silent as to certain claimed limitations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. FDA (N.D.W.V.)

Mylan filed a complaint on April 25, 2014, challenging a letter decision by the FDA, addressing the marketing exclusivity eligibility of celecoxib Abbreviated New Drug Application applicants. Mylan then filed a motion for...more

Jumping Into The Actavis Briar Patch — Insight Into How Courts May Structure Reverse Payment Antitrust Proceedings And The...

In This Issue: - INTRODUCTION - WHAT ARE REVERSE PAYMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS? ..The Basic Framework of Hatch-Waxman Litigation ..The Federal Trade Commission’s View of Reverse Payment Settlements and Its...more

GENERICally Speaking - Vol. 4, No. 1

The Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Life Sciences practice groups at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. are pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the...more

Reverse Payment Agreements Under Hatch-Waxman

On March 25, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. No. 12-416. The question presented in the writ of certiorari concerned whether reverse payment agreements are per se...more

Supreme Court: Reverse Payment Settlements Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny

On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that addressed a “reverse payment” settlement agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical company (plaintiff patent holder) and multiple generic drug companies...more

Supreme Court Applies Antitrust Scrutiny to ANDA Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements

In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court held that reverse payment (“pay-for-delay”) settlement agreements made in the context of settling Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation should be evaluated for antitrust...more

31 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2

"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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*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.
×