Leveraging Pharmaceutical Patent Exclusivities Michael R. Dzwonczyk Sughrue Mion, PLLC Global Perspective on Pharma and Biotech Patents Taj Residency,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Presented by Richard J. Berman, Partner Arent Fox LLP Washington, DC
Advertisements

Patent-Extender Drugs: Loop-holes in the Law Sandy H. Yoo 4/14/06.
Pharma Workshop IV Patent Linkage in the USA Lawrence T. Welch Eli Lilly and Company.
The Gaming of Pharmaceutical Patents Brief Overview.
Exclusivity And FDA Barriers To Market Entry In The US Brian V. Slater, Esq. Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Pharmaceutical.
An Introduction to the Hatch-Waxman Act and ANDA Litigation
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2007 | How to Align the FDA Approval Process with PIV Strategy Chad A. Landmon 90 State House Square 1330.
FDA Counsel.com 1 ANDAs, OTCs, Orphans and Cosmetics -- Key Issues Wednesday, August 18, 2004 SDRAN RAC STUDY COURSE Michael A. Swit, Esq. FDACounsel.com.
What You Need to Know About Biosimilars: Products, Recent Deals, IP Issues and Licensing August 2, 2012 Madison C. Jellins 1.
Joan Bergstrom Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc.
1 Hatch-Waxman Boot Camp July 19-20, 2010 Mary C. Till Legal Advisor Office of Patent Legal Administration.
Hatch Waxman: Prescriptions for Innovative and Inexpensive Medicines
1 Law School For Pharmaceutical And Medical Manufacturer Executives Understanding Your Company’s Antitrust Exposure While Litigating Or Settling Patent.
Hatch-Waxman Reforms Under The “Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, And Modernization Act 2003” Brian V. Slater, Esq. Fitzpatrick,
The Hatch-Waxman Act and How it Works: Balancing Incentives to Innovate with the Need for Affordable Drugs Minnesota Intellectual Property Association.
Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings.
Patent Term Adjustments and Extensions
1 Remedies for True Owner of Right to Obtain Patent against Usurped Patent AIPLA MWI IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting Sunday, January 22, 2012.
Safekeeping of 35 U.S.C. 156 Extensions
FEDERAL REGULATIONS OF MEDICATIONS Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act Protect consumers from adulterated and misbranded foods, drugs, cosmetics, or devices.
Development and Review Process of NDA, ANDA/AADA and OTC Dr. Basavaraj K. Nanjwade M. Pharm., Ph. D Associate Professor Department of Pharmaceutics KLE.
1 Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board. The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2015(MFA) Grants state and local jurisdictions the right to require the collection.
Legal and Regulatory Considerations When Pursuing an ANDA Shaoyu Chen Managing Director China Food and Drug Practice Covington & Burling LLP Third DIA.
A New Pathway for Follow-on Biologics Presented by: Steve Nash May 7, 2010.
Regulation of Generic Drugs Office of Generic Drugs Craig Kiester Regulatory Support Branch.
© 2009 Pharmaceutical Law Group PC Market Exclusivity Paradigm Gregory J. Glover, MD, JD Pharmaceutical Law Group
1 Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156 Mary C. Till Legal Advisor Office of Patent Legal Administration.
The Life Sciences Lawyer’s Guide to PTA and PTE
INVESTIGATIONAL DRUG SERVICES IN THE HOSPITAL Sheree Miller, Pharm.D. University of Washington Medical Center
The U.S. Legal System and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Stages of drug development
FDLI Introduction to Biotech Law San Francisco June 15-16, 2005 ABBREVIATED NEW DRUG APPLICATIONS & PATENT/EXCLUSIVITY ISSUES Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice.
Subsequent Entry Biologics (SEBs) – Canada Presentation to AIPLA Biotechnology Committee January 25, 2012 Daphne C. Lainson
Data protection and extension of patent rights TRIPS requirements & TRIPS-plus provisions Carlos Correa.
Korean Patent Practice - Pharmaceutical field - Jonghyeok Park MS., Ph.D.course Jonghyeok Park MS., Ph.D.course Partner Pharmacist Patent Attorney.
H I R S C H & P A R T N E R S A v o c a t S o l i c i t o r R e c h t s a n w a l t Pharmaceutical settlement agreements and competition law A litigation.
Investigational New Drug Application (IND)
Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D. AIPLA BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE Pinning Down a Moving Target: Patenting Biotech in Uncertain Times.
Investigational Drugs in the hospital. + What is Investigational Drug? Investigational or experimental drugs are new drugs that have not yet been approved.
The FTC, Pharmaceuticals, Antitrust & IP: A Grab Bag October 23, 2008 This presentation was prepared from public sources. The views expressed herein do.
Administrative Dispute Term, Subject, Types, Competent Bodies, Parties, Procedure.
Follow-on or Biosimilar Biologic s Points to Consider Paul Kim Foley Hoag LLP Massachusetts Biotechnology Council Thursday, May 28, 2009 © 2008 Foley Hoag.
Safe Harbor or Not: Application of 271(e)(1) to Pioneering Drug Discovery Activities Susan Steele October 21, 2003.
© 2008 Dechert LLP Pharma v. Pharma or Pharma & Pharma: The Legal Interface Between the Makers of Original and Copied Versions of Medicines AIPLA Antitrust,
Rabbanai T. Morgan Current as of 26 January 2006 Protests.
COPYRIGHT LAW 2003 Professor Fischer CLASS of April THE LAST CLASS!!!
A: Copy –Rights – Artistic, Literary work, Computer software Etc. B: Related Rights – Performers, Phonogram Producers, Broadcasters etc. C: Industrial.
INTERESTING AND PENDING DECISIONS FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT JANUARY, 2004 Nanette S. Thomas Senior Intellectual Property Counsel Becton Dickinson and Company.
Our PatientsOur PeopleOur BusinessOur Community © 2008 Endo Pharmaceuticals. All Rights Reserved. Biosimilars 2009 Update Pending Legislation Review Pam.
‘Linkage’ & other TRIPS+ provisions: a public health perspective Karin Timmermans World Health Organization Seminar “Data exclusivity and patent Bangkok.
Biotechnology Chemical Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership
Initiatives Drive Pediatric Drug Development January 30, 2002.
Hatch-Waxman As Amended (MMA) Thomas O. Henteleff Kleinfeld, Kaplan and Becker, LLP November 9, 2005.
Defenses & Counterclaims III Class Notes: March 27, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
 An Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) contains data which when submitted to FDA's CDER, Office of Generic Drugs, provides for the review and ultimate.
Regulation of Generic Animal Drugs in the United States
BARASH LAW LLC Case Competition Eyal H. Barash BARASH LAW LLC January 29, 2016
Recent FTC Pharmaceutical Cases: Background and Examples Sue H. Kim This presentation was prepared from public sources. The views expressed herein do not.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 11 – Bio/Pharma Issues 1.
James G. Sheehan Associate United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA Phone: (215)
University of Ottawa - Faculty of Law
The Life Sciences Lawyer’s Guide to PTA and PTE
Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement: Halo v. Pulse
Patent Term Extension In Israel
America Invents Act: Litigation Related Provisions
Hatch-Waxman Overview
Biotechnology Chemical Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership
Pharma Workshop IV Patent Linkage in the USA
eBay v. MercExchange: Model or Monster?
Pharmaceuticals Industry
Presentation transcript:

Leveraging Pharmaceutical Patent Exclusivities Michael R. Dzwonczyk Sughrue Mion, PLLC Global Perspective on Pharma and Biotech Patents Taj Residency, Ummed Ahmedabad, India April 19, 2007

Sources of Exclusivity Patent Exclusivity Patent Term Extension Non-Patent (Regulatory) Exclusivity New Chemical Entity (NCE) (5 years) First ANDA patent challenger (180 days) New Clinical Investigations (3 years) Orphan Drug (7 years) Pediatric (6 months)

3 First ANDA Patent Challenger Exclusivity Under Hatch-Waxman: First ANDA Para IV filer (under §505(j)) obtains 180-day exclusivity against other ANDA filers FDA precluded from approving second ANDA covering same drug product for 180 days after start of first exclusivity period Several issues arising under Hatch-Waxman have been addressed by the Medicare Modernization Act (“MMA”)

4 180-Day Exclusivity Eligibility The drug includes the listed drug First applicant includes all ANDAs filed on the same “first” day (shared exclusivity for same-day filings) First applicant is the first ANDA with a PIV to any patent (no shared exclusivity for different patents) NOTE: NOT applicable to 505(b)(2) applications

180-Day Exclusivity Trigger Is 180-day exclusivity triggered by trial court or appellate decision? Pre-MMA, FDA policy that exclusivity was triggered by district court decision; Created difficult choice for ANDA applicants: launch at risk of appellate reversal and face potential lost profits damages, or potentially lose benefit of 180-day exclusivity

6 180-Day Exclusivity Trigger Post-MMA For ANDAs with no Para IV prior to Dec. 8, 2003: trigger is first commercial marketing of generic drug or brand drug by any “first applicant” court decision is no longer a trigger but may be a “forfeiture” event

Post-MMA Forfeiture First applicant’s 180-day exclusivity forfeited by first applicant’s: 1.Failure to market 2.Withdrawal of ANDA (either voluntarily or by FDA) 3.Amendment/withdrawal of qualifying Para IV as to all patents 4.Failure to obtain tentative approval within 30 months 5.Agreement with another ANDA applicant, NDA holder or patent owner adjudicated to violate antitrust laws 6.Expiration of all the patents that are subject of qualifying Para IV of first applicant

Post-MMA Failure to Market Forfeiture For failure to market the drug by the later of: If no PIV litigation, the earlier of: 75 days after ANDA approval; or 30 months after ANDA submission If PIV litigation: – 75 days after favorable court decision on all qualifying patents (appeals court, or unappealed district court decision); or – 75 days after favorable court settlement or consent decree on all qualifying patents; or – 75 days after all qualifying patents are delisted

Generic Strategies re 180 days Under MMA, ANDA applicant can file declaratory judgment action for invalidity/non- infringement if patentee does not bring suit during 45-day period) Case or controversy must be proven “Courts shall, to the extent consistent with the Constitution, have subject matter jurisdiction” over such actions.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(5)

Generic Strategies re 180 days For years, patent holder would not sue at all within 45-day period or bring suit on less than all of the listed patents ANDA applicants sought DJ relief based on: –Patent listing in Orange Book –Failure to sue within 45-day period –Refusal to grant a covenant not to sue –Patent holder litigation history

Generic Strategies re 180 days DJ relief denied based on failure to establish “reasonable apprehension of imminent suit” under Federal Circuit standard Teva v. Pfizer, Inc., 395 F.3d 1324 (2005 ) Pre- and Post-MMA courts routinely denied DJ jurisdiction to generic companies Resulted in a patent listing/litigation strategy by patent holder for delaying patent dispute

Generic Strategies re 180 days The U.S. Supreme Court criticized the Federal Circuit’s standard for DJ jurisdiction in Medimmune v. Genentech (Jan. 2007) Controversy established by a definite and concrete dispute between parties having adverse legal interests In response, Federal Circuit dispenses with its own Teva standard (“reasonable apprehension of imminent suit”) in Teva v. Novartis (March 30, 2007)

Teva v. Novartis (March 30, 2007) DJ Jurisdiction established where: 1.five patents listed in Orange Book 2.suit brought on 1 of 5 listed patents 3.Novartis refused to grant a covenant not to sue 4.Novartis had an aggressive litigation history Lower threshold for future generics seeking “patent certainty” through DJ action Must establish definite and concrete controversy All circumstances may be considered

14 Generic Strategies re 180 days MMA permits ANDA applicant to bring a counterclaim in an infringement suit to delist patents from Orange Book Counterclaim only; no independent right of action Previously, ANDA applicant had no private cause of action against NDA holder First Para IV ANDA filer likely will not want to do this because it would lose 180-days exclusivity, but subsequent ANDA filer may

Orange Book Patent Delisting Mylan Pharm. v. Thompson, 268 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ( Generic applicants are unable to sue the NDA sponsor to delist a patent) Andrx Pharm. Inc. v. Biovail Corp., 276 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Right of Action exists against FDA under the APA for improper patent listing) Alphapharm v. Thompson, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) (Affirmed FDA’s ministerial role in declining to list certain patents in the Orange Book).

Orange Book Patent Delisting Patentee strategy: Can an NDA holder delist its own patents from the Orange Book after P IV certifications have been filed, in order to deprive the ANDA applicant of 180-day exclusivity?

Orange Book Patent Delisting NO! The purpose of the statute is to allow delisting when a generic drug maker files an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification and the NDA holder has not filed a lawsuit to contest the certification FDA may not delist Orange Book patents at the request of the NDA holder after PIV certifications have been filed NDA holders must prepare to litigate listed patents Ranbaxy v. Leavitt, 469 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 2006)

Patent Term Extension Basics One PTE per drug One PTE per patent (even if it covers multiple products) Calculation: 1/2 x [IND Effective Date → NDA Submission] + [NDA Submission → NDA Approval]_______ Regulatory Review Period Extension may not be more than 5 years Total term (as extended) may not exceed 14 years from approval

PTE Case study (Norvasc®) Norvasc® is amlodipine besylate Dr. Reddys sought approval to market amlodipine maleate, contending PTE only covered the approved besylate salt Is the “approved drug product” which is the subject of the PTE the API (amlodipine) or the particular salt form that is marketed?

PTE Case study (Norvasc®) District Court agreed with Dr. Reddys: –Since amlodipine besylate was subject to regulatory review, only besylate salt was covered by PTE Federal Circuit reversed: –Amlodipine was the “drug product” subject to regulatory review, so PTE covers amlodipine and all salts If PTE covers active moiety + esters and salts, can any products be marketed during the PTE at all?

Products Not Covered by PTE Active moiety forms other than salts and esters –Polymorphs, polymorph salts, hydrates, etc. Usually not covered by NCE patent Can be filed in ANDA, eligible for AB- rating and are directly substitutable Different salts and other nonequivalent forms must be approved through a 505(b)(2) application or even an NDA

Bracketing the IP space of Important Compounds How? Polymorphs, salts, esters, cocrystals Enantiomers (Nexium®) Formulation, administration Extended release (Cardizem-XL®), long- acting, immediate release, absorption, pKa, pKd (Procardia-XL®) Combination, co-administration, drug delivery

LCM Approach © 2004 John Lucas

Bracketing the IP space of Important Compounds At what stage in the product lifecycle? NCE expiration Blockbuster sales FDA approval/commercial launch Phase III clinicals NDA submission IND submission 18-month publication of patent

When to begin? Years PCT National Stage - $$$ FDA Approval Patent Expiration EP Validation Phase - $$$ Phase Preclinical23FDA Review1

NCE Exclusivity Applies to any NDA (including 505(b)(2)) for a drug no “active ingredient” (including ester or salt) of which has been approved in any other NDA Prohibits a generic from submitting an ANDA for 5 years from date of NDA approval If an ANDA includes a P-IV Certification it can be filed after 4 years, but any 30-month stay is extended by up to 1 year (to expire 7-1/2 years after NDA approval)

Pediatric Exclusivity Extends any applicable patent or regulatory exclusivity by an additional 6 months Sponsor must conduct FDA-requested pediatric studies Two separate 6-month extensions are possible Pediatric studies can also support a 3-year NCI exclusivity Sunset: October 1, 2007 [Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act 2002]

Pediatric Exclusivity BUT, a provision in the act allows generic companies to carve pediatric indications out of their label and thus avoid the patent-term extension in most cases. –Statute does not say 505(b)(2) applications can avoid NCI exclusivity by carve out

Pediatric Exclusivity Runs from expiration (including any extensions) of each Orange Book listed patent Bars approval of ANDA or 505(b)(2) for 6 months Not a patent term extension so commercial activities after patent expiration are not subject to damages or injunction In case of Para II and Para III (patent expiration), any exclusivity automatically begins at patent expiration

Orphan Drug Exclusivity First NDA or BLA approved for a “rare” disease or condition, i.e., one that affects less than 200,000 persons in US, or affects more than 200,000 persons in US but there is no “reasonable” expectation that development costs for drug will be recovered from US sales

Orphan Drug Exclusivity Exclusivity bars approval of another NDA, ANDA, 505(b)(2) or BLA for same drug for same disease or condition “Same drug” means: –For small molecules, a drug that contains same active moiety –For large molecules, a drug that contains the same principal molecular structural features

Orphan Drug Exclusivity Exceptions (allowing the FDA to approve a second drug during 7-year period): If innovator cannot supply enough drug to meet the needs of persons with the disease If the innovator consents If the new drug is shown to be different from the approved orphan drug because the new drug is “clinically superior” Greater effectiveness Greater safety (Avonex®) Major contribution to patient care

Three-Year NCI Exclusivity New clinical indications for approved products Supplements adding new conditions of use to existing product: –Formulations, indications, dosing regimens, patient populations, OTC Switch, other aspects of labeling Requires: –New clinical studies that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant, and were "essential to the approval"

Three-Year NCI Exclusivity Prohibits FDA approval (but not submission) of the ANDA for 3 years after NDA/sNDA approval. Thus, ANDA approval can come exactly 3 years later But, generics can "carve out" exclusive conditions of use, and pharmacies will still substitute for the exclusive uses Key brand strategy: "discontinued labeling."

Generic "Carve Out" Strategy Generic (ANDA) product must have the "same labeling" as the innovator; but Generic labeling may omit (or "carve out") labeling that is protected by patent or exclusivity; except Carve out not permitted if to do so would render the generic less safe for remaining labeled uses

Discontinued Labeling Strategies Obtain new, patented or exclusive conditions of use: –New dosing schedule (tramadol, famotidine) –New pK data (metaxalone) –Combination use (ribavirin/peginterferon) Revise labeling to prevent "carve out“ by generics FDA will not permit generic use of old labeling

Summary  Use DJ action early to establish patent certainty  Oppose Orange Book delisting after P IV filing  PIV early to at least one listed patent to gain first applicant status  Investigate alternate forms of active moiety and seek IP protection where possible  Investigate forms not covered by NCE but still AB rated

Summary (cont.)  Investigate and protect formulations, methods of administration or methods of manufacture that offer an advantage  Consider alternative salt forms through a 505(b)(2) application  Search for drug products with gaps in IP protection  Consider pediatric carve-out to avoid 6-month exclusivity  Patented use carve-out before NDA holder discontinues label

Thank You Michael R. Dzwonczyk