知产力,为创新聚合知识产权解决方案

An Overview Of ANDA Litigation In The United States

2018-01-24 12:41 · 作者:Christopher J. Sorenson   阅读:331

Christopher J. Sorenson

Partner, Merchant & Gould P.C.


(本文系知产力国际获得独家首发授权的稿件,转载须征得作者本人同意,并在显要位置注明文章来源。)




【编者按】


本文作者Christopher J. Sorenson系Merchant & Gould P.C.合伙人,生命科学诉讼业务团队的诉讼律师及前任主席,主要从事基于Hatch-Waxman法案的专利诉讼。他曾参与数次争辩性仲裁审理,还出庭过联邦法院和州立法院的审判。目前,他的工作重心是代表仿制药企业进行ANDA诉讼。


本文中文版稍后将在知产力微信订阅号(ID: zhichanli)上发表,敬请期待。





In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulates the pharmaceutical industry, including the approval of generic drug products.   In order to facilitate greater availability of generic products in the market, while also encouraging brand company investments in research and development, Congress enacted a statutory framework commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j), 35 U.S.C. §§156, 271(e)).  This framework facilitates the interplay in the United States between regulatory exclusivities and the adjudication of patent exclusivities that may apply to any particular drug product.    



I.    Overview of the Hatch-Waxman Framework.



At a high level, under the Hatch-Waxman framework, entities seeking approval for a new drug (NDA applicants) must identify the patents that apply to the active ingredient, the formulation, and the methods of use relating to that product, which are then listed by the FDA in the Orange Book.[1]  Upon approval of a drug pursuant to an NDA application, the FDA will grant marketing rights to that drug that run independently of any patent term.  There are several different marketing (or “regulatory”) exclusivity periods that may apply – including NCE (New Chemical Entity) exclusivity, Orphan Drug Exclusivity (ODE), as well as other exclusivity periods.

Any patent exclusivities are adjudicated between the NDA holder and a generic manufacturer in a United States District Court.  Beginning one year before the expiration of NCE exclusivity, a generic manufacturer may submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for FDA approval of the generic product.  The ANDA applicant must demonstrate to the FDA that its generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient and basic pharmacokinetics as the branded drug; (2) is bioequivalent; and (3) the dosage form and strength are the same as the branded product.  Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Forest Labs., Ltd., 527 F.3d 1278, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The ANDA applicant can rely on the clinical data from the branded drug to demonstrate safety and efficacy of its product, and thus, may receive expedited FDA approval at a lower cost than was incurred by the NDA holder to obtain its original drug approval.  Id.

To resolve any patent issues raised by the proposed generic product, the generic company must include a “Paragraph IV” certification to at least one of any of patents listed in the FDA Orange Book.  Id. at 1283.  This certification is one of four available,[2] but is the only one that provokes a corresponding litigation.  AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  A “Paragraph IV” ANDA certification is deemed an artificial act of patent infringement. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 817 F.3d 755, 760 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  Thus, courts are allowed to determine whether the generic drug product would (if approved) infringe a valid patent, even though no actual sales of the ANDA product have occurred.  Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661, 678 (1990).  And the NDA holder (if successful in patent litigation) can obtain a permanent injunction that will prohibit final FDA approval of the product until after the patent(s) at issue expire.  Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., 817 F.3d at 760.  Conversely, an ANDA applicant who is a first-to-file applicant, and is successful, receives a valuable 180-day marketing exclusivity period as the only approved generic product.  Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., 781 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Although the exact procedures are beyond the scope of this article, if the brand company complies with certain protocols within the timeframes established by the Hatch-Waxman act, an automatic stay of approval of the ANDA application for a period of thirty months will apply.  Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008).  The patent litigation is thus on a relatively short timeline, as resolution of the case at the district court level should (at the latest) occur within 30 months of receipt by the NDA holder of notice that an Orange Book patent is the subject of a Paragraph IV notice.   This generally means that most United States District Courts will impose a case schedule that mandates a trial occur within 18-24 months from the date the notice letter is sent to the NDA holder, as reflected in the following table:

图表180124.PNG

The Hatch-Waxman framework thus offers the means to resolve patent disputes associated with the ANDA product prior to final FDA approval of the generic drug.   This, in principle, provides a means to avoid damage to the branded product’s market share, and eliminates large monetary awards against the generic manufacturer that would otherwise arise out of making, and using, the patented invention during preparation of an ANDA application.



II.   Tranexamic Acid – A Case Study.



Hatch-Waxman litigation can be complicated, and has the potential to raise many potential issues of patent law, civil procedure, science, and FDA regulation.  One case in particular offers a cogent case study that demonstrates the many overlapping considerations that may come into play during the course of an ANDA litigation in the United States.    Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 764 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2014) demonstrates the competing principles of regulatory exclusivity and the limits of patent protection available for a new formulation of a very old active ingredient.   In this case, the Hatch-Waxman framework facilitated the prompt introduction of a generic version of a drug product, while maintaining a reasonable period of market exclusivity for the brand company that had developed the product. 

Lysteda® was approved by the FDA in November of 2009.  It was approved as an immediate release tablet formulation of tranexamic acid, an active ingredient that had (for decades) been used in Europe to treat menorrhagia.  Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs, Inc., 764 F.3d 1382, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2014).   The FDA granted Lysteda several years of market exclusivity, which expired in 2012.  Before any patent was listed in the Orange Book for this product, and shortly after Lysteda® was originally approved, Watson filed its ANDA, seeking approval of a generic version of the Lysteda® product.  Ferring B.V. v. Watson Labs., Inc., 764 F.3d 1401, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 2014).  Ferring subsequently[3] listed three patents, each directed to a modified release formulations of tranexamic acid.  Id. at 1403.  After Watson filed Paragraph IV certifications to each patent with the FDA and gave Ferring notice of those certifications, Ferring filed a patent infringement suit in the district of Nevada in July of 2011.  The case proceeded through discovery, and a trial was held beginning in January of 2014, more than 12 months after Watson’s generic product was commercially sold in the United States, as Ferring’s regulatory exclusivity had expired and Watson’s product had been approved by the FDA. 

Among the patent claims asserted by Ferring were claims drawn to the dissolution of tranexamic acid from the drug product in water.  Id.  Watson’s ANDA specification did not include any information on the dissolution characteristics of the final product in water, but Ferring argued that some experimental testing done to support the ANDA application showed that an uncoated, intermediate form of the ANDA tablets had exhibited a dissolution profile in water within the scope of the patent claims.  Id. at 1410-11.  Ferring also noted that dissolution testing done by Watson during the litigation identified at least some final products demonstrated an infringing dissolution profile in water.  Id. at 1410.

After an eight-day bench trial, the Nevada District Court concluded the ANDA product infringed the patents, and an immediate appeal was filed.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, and noted that the filing of an ANDA was “constructive” infringement only for jurisdictional purposes, but that it was Ferring’s burden to demonstrate that the proposed ANDA product would actually infringe.  Id. at 1408.  The Federal Circuit found that Ferring had failed to meet its burden of proof, noting that only the final, approved, form of the ANDA product was relevant.  Id. at 1410.  And the Federal Circuit found that evidence of a few anomalous dissolution results among hundreds of other results showing non-infringement was not sufficient to sustain Ferring’s burden of proof.  Id.at 1409-10.  Of the hundreds of samples actually tested by Ferring’s experts, only four tablets dissolved within the claimed dissolution parameters.  Id. at 1405.  Watson’s expert offered evidence that those outliers were inadequately coated and were not representative of Watson’s ANDA product.  Id. at 1409.  The Federal Circuit found that the four anomalous tablets did not prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. 

The Federal Circuit also discounted experimental dissolution data of Watson’s intermediates that did not reflect the finished, coated commercial tablets.  Id. at 1410.  The uncoated intermediate cores with a measured harness of less than 17 kp were found to dissolve outside the claimed dissolution profile, and the amended ANDA required a core hardness less than 17 kp in Watson’s FDA-approved tranexamic tablets.  Id.  Accordingly, the Federal Circuit concluded that dissolution testing of intermediates outside of FDA-approved specifications did not satisfy Ferring’s burden in demonstrating infringement.  Id.  In summary, the thorough knowledge and application of patent law, scientific, and regulatory concepts led to Watson’s successful defense against patent infringement, and to its successful generic product launch.



III.  Conclusion.



As demonstrated above, experienced counsel can develop effective strategies to navigate through the complex Hatch-Waxman framework.  Brand companies often obtain valuable regulatory exclusivities, whose length depends on whether they have achieved new formulations, discovered new chemical entities, or patented strong inventions.  In turn, generic companies can obtain valuable 180-day generic exclusivities if they successfully challenge brand product patents.  And while patent disputes can get complicated in the United States, the fact that they can be litigated during FDA evaluation and before a generic product enters the marketplace benefits all parties. 

Moreover, the case study discussed above demonstrates the importance of a thorough analysis of an ANDA’s specifications, and the importance of considering pending and issued patent claims in the United States during development—especially if the ultimate strategy is to design-around the brand company’s patents.  And in the United States, anomalies will not necessarily prove infringement. 


[1] Generally speaking, the NDA holder is not allowed to list patents pertaining to the process, or manufacturing of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, but any generic manufacturer should nonetheless identify (to the extent possible) any such patents as part of their due diligence associated with deciding whether to pursue a generic product.  Patents that are not listed in the Orange Book could, in theory, be asserted against a generic product independently of the Hatch-Waxman framework upon FDA approval and commercial sale of the product in the United States. 


[2]  An applicant may proceed with its ANDA application without challenging the listed patents as well.  The certifications available in Section 355(j)(2)(A)(vii) are as follows: (I) the reference drug is not listed with any applicable patents; (II) the patent has expired; (III) the generic drug will not go onto market until the listed patent expires; or (IV) that the patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug.


[3] Since no patent had issued at the time, no patents were listed in the Orange Book when Watson’s ANDA was filed.  As a result, there was no automatic 30-month stay of FDA approval in this case.  See 35 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B).



  • 商标法第44条第1款“其他不正当手段”的解读

    中国商标法中没有关于“恶意”的定义,“恶意注册”或“不正当手段”的表述散见在多个条款中。2016年12月,商标局、商标评审委员会(以下简称为商评委)联合发布了修订后的《商标审查及审理标准》。
  • Uber商业秘密案:辩方策略与“反证据开示手段”

    今年2月9日,Waymo诉Uber窃取商业秘密案以双方和解告终。Uber向Waymo提供其公司0.34%的股份,按其720亿美元的市值来算,Uber相当于支付了约价值2.45亿美元的资产。考虑到最初主张的20亿美元的赔偿额,加上随着诉讼进展该公司在描黑对手方面已大占上风,Waymo最终接受这么低的和解条件令人惊奇。
  • 熊文聪:网游直播“合理使用”辩

    近段时间以来,有关网络游戏直播的侵犯著作权问题引发了游戏产业界、法律实务界和学术理论界的广泛关注和热烈讨论,涉及网游直播画面的作品界定、权利归属、行为类型与合理使用等诸多难点问题,笔者也曾就其中的作品界定问题进行了分析。
  • “商业经营模式”可以构成“商业秘密”吗?

    所谓“商业经营模式”,是指商事经营主体在长期经营活动中形成的、较为固定的合作方式、运营状态、运转程序等,是一个由客户价值、企业资源和能力、盈利方式共同构成的立体模式。那么,商业经营模式可以构成“商业秘密”吗?
  • 游戏诉讼中如何确定“思想”和“表达”(中)

    昨天有细心的朋友指出“青眼究极龙”不是应该三个头吗?肿么只有一个头?——作为一篇学术文章,被diss的对象全部针对插图,很心塞——这种BUG我怎么可能会出现(心好慌):难道就因为不让你们上外服吃鸡?就因为沉溺于挂机页游版吃鸡?就因为马布里退役了?就忘记了召唤青眼究极龙的步骤?
  • 商标法第44条第1款“其他不正当手段”的解读

    中国商标法中没有关于“恶意”的定义,“恶意注册”或“不正当手段”的表述散见在多个条款中。2016年12月,商标局、商标评审委员会(以下简称为商评委)联合发布了修订后的《商标审查及审理标准》。
  • Uber商业秘密案:辩方策略与“反证据开示手段”

    今年2月9日,Waymo诉Uber窃取商业秘密案以双方和解告终。Uber向Waymo提供其公司0.34%的股份,按其720亿美元的市值来算,Uber相当于支付了约价值2.45亿美元的资产。考虑到最初主张的20亿美元的赔偿额,加上随着诉讼进展该公司在描黑对手方面已大占上风,Waymo最终接受这么低的和解条件令人惊奇。
  • 熊文聪:网游直播“合理使用”辩

    近段时间以来,有关网络游戏直播的侵犯著作权问题引发了游戏产业界、法律实务界和学术理论界的广泛关注和热烈讨论,涉及网游直播画面的作品界定、权利归属、行为类型与合理使用等诸多难点问题,笔者也曾就其中的作品界定问题进行了分析。
  • “商业经营模式”可以构成“商业秘密”吗?

    所谓“商业经营模式”,是指商事经营主体在长期经营活动中形成的、较为固定的合作方式、运营状态、运转程序等,是一个由客户价值、企业资源和能力、盈利方式共同构成的立体模式。那么,商业经营模式可以构成“商业秘密”吗?
  • 厉害了!比起韩国在知识产权领域的设想,平昌冬奥会都不算啥

    平昌冬奥会开幕了。正如30年前韩国在首尔第一次举办夏季奥运会、10年前中国在北京第一次举办夏季奥运会一样,每次奥林匹克圣火的降临都是东道主向全世界展示自己的难得机遇,也是主办国进一步扩大国际化的最佳契机。
  • 游戏诉讼中如何确定“思想”和“表达”(中)

    昨天有细心的朋友指出“青眼究极龙”不是应该三个头吗?肿么只有一个头?——作为一篇学术文章,被diss的对象全部针对插图,很心塞——这种BUG我怎么可能会出现(心好慌):难道就因为不让你们上外服吃鸡?就因为沉溺于挂机页游版吃鸡?就因为马布里退役了?就忘记了召唤青眼究极龙的步骤?
  • 拍案说法|商业秘密案中权利人对客户名单存在交叉承担举证责任

    客户名单属于经营中形成的客户信息,记载了权利人的服务对象、服务内容、联系方式等内容,与权利人提供的特定服务密不可分,具有专有性和区别性特征,可以认定为商业秘密。
  • 厉害了!比起韩国在知识产权领域的设想,平昌冬奥会都不算啥

    平昌冬奥会开幕了。正如30年前韩国在首尔第一次举办夏季奥运会、10年前中国在北京第一次举办夏季奥运会一样,每次奥林匹克圣火的降临都是东道主向全世界展示自己的难得机遇,也是主办国进一步扩大国际化的最佳契机。
  • 对话IP人|陶鑫良:法学人才要“瘦身减肥”,管理人才要 “强身扩体”

    随着我国从“知识产权大国”向“知识产权强国”迈进,面对知识产权保护范围不断扩大、知识产权保护水平日益提高、知识产权保护力度逐年加强的国内外形势,我国对知识产权应用型人才的同步需求愈发增大。当前我国在知识产权人才培养与需求方面的问题备受关注。为此,本期知产力对话IP人栏目特邀请了资深知识产权专家、大连理工大学知识产权学院院长陶鑫良教授,与他就我国知识产权人才培养的系列议题进行深入对话。
  • 孙磊:游戏诉讼中如何确定“思想”和“表达”

    修生养息地玩了一个月游戏,每天内心中的小天使都会蹦出来说“该去码字了”,而小恶魔马上蹦出来说“是的”——当然,他们俩的话我都没听,我是一个有主见的“银”。这几天,我们来说一说换皮游戏中,如何确定思想和表达。
  • 闹剧:IAM眼中对撸的西电捷通和苹果

    在北京的专利年会上,来自苹果关联私人执业律师的一个带有些许敌意的问题,引发了一场激烈的、略微难堪的对话,十分罕见。苹果与中国公司西电捷通之间在中国法院的战火已经燃烧了一年多,而今天刚刚在中国国家会议中心开幕的中国专利年会的与会者,亲眼看到了这一幕的上演。
  • 知识产权诉讼技巧及实战攻略系列课程 | 开课啦

    知产力(微信ID:zhichanli)知产力是一家致力于“为创新聚合知识产权解决方案”的原创型新媒体平台。关
  • 非诚勿扰“嘘嘘”篇——华谊兄弟撤诉

    2017年6月29日,北京市朝阳区人民法院作出民事裁定,准予华谊兄弟传媒股份有限公司(下称华谊兄弟)撤回对金阿欢、永嘉县非诚勿扰婚姻介绍所(普通合伙)侵害作品信息网络传播权的起诉。 朝阳法院的该份裁定是基于2017年6月27日,华谊兄弟提出的撤诉申请。关于撤诉原因,目前尚不知晓。
  • 商标评审速递 | “花芊古”遇到“花千骨”再天然也不行

    “花芊古天然”商标申请被驳回;JEEP无效“水中吉普SHui ZHong Ji Pu”
  • 专利侵权案搜狗持续推进:9项侵权已进入庭审

    近日,搜狗诉百度专利侵权案又有了新的进展。据了解,之前国家知识产权局专利复审委员会已经裁定有效的9项专利的相关诉讼已进入庭审阶段。在相关专利被认定有效的前提下,进入庭审也就意味着百度败诉的可能性大增。
  • Uber商业秘密案:辩方策略与“反证据开示手段”

    今年2月9日,Waymo诉Uber窃取商业秘密案以双方和解告终。Uber向Waymo提供其公司0.34%的股份,按其720亿美元的市值来算,Uber相当于支付了约价值2.45亿美元的资产。考虑到最初主张的20亿美元的赔偿额,加上随着诉讼进展该公司在描黑对手方面已大占上风,Waymo最终接受这么低的和解条件令人惊奇。
  • “商业经营模式”可以构成“商业秘密”吗?

    所谓“商业经营模式”,是指商事经营主体在长期经营活动中形成的、较为固定的合作方式、运营状态、运转程序等,是一个由客户价值、企业资源和能力、盈利方式共同构成的立体模式。那么,商业经营模式可以构成“商业秘密”吗?
  • 厉害了!比起韩国在知识产权领域的设想,平昌冬奥会都不算啥

    平昌冬奥会开幕了。正如30年前韩国在首尔第一次举办夏季奥运会、10年前中国在北京第一次举办夏季奥运会一样,每次奥林匹克圣火的降临都是东道主向全世界展示自己的难得机遇,也是主办国进一步扩大国际化的最佳契机。
  • 对话IP人|陶鑫良:法学人才要“瘦身减肥”,管理人才要 “强身扩体”

    随着我国从“知识产权大国”向“知识产权强国”迈进,面对知识产权保护范围不断扩大、知识产权保护水平日益提高、知识产权保护力度逐年加强的国内外形势,我国对知识产权应用型人才的同步需求愈发增大。当前我国在知识产权人才培养与需求方面的问题备受关注。为此,本期知产力对话IP人栏目特邀请了资深知识产权专家、大连理工大学知识产权学院院长陶鑫良教授,与他就我国知识产权人才培养的系列议题进行深入对话。
  • 知识产权法反垄断前沿问题的探讨

    知识产权青年学人交流会,是由华中科技大学法学院熊琦教授发起,法学院知识产权青年创新团队组织的全国性学术交流项目。