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:585

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).



  • “时事新闻”文章配图是否受著作权法保护

    在当前的司法实践中,对于时事新闻文章配图如何适用著作权法中的时事新闻条款存在较大的争议,不同法院对此作出了截然不同的裁判,有待统一裁判规则。
  • 专利务实|非治疗用途和治疗用途存在关联时可否授予专利权

    专利法规定疾病的诊断和治疗方法不能授予专利权,但疾病的诊断和治疗方法的范畴一直存在争议。本文介绍了EPO对于某种方法或用途涉及治疗用途和非治疗用途时的处理思路和典型判例,其中治疗用途和非治疗用途能否区分开来的处理方式值得借鉴。
  • 浅析体育赛事节目著作权保护问题

    日前,北京知识产权法院审结新浪诉凤凰网、乐视网在线直播中超赛事构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争一案(下称“新浪案”),单就著作权部分来看,判决结果是凤凰网和乐视网网络直播中超赛事的行为不构成侵权,而该案的一审法院则认定涉案行为所播出的赛事画面构成作品(但未明确为何种作品类型),进而认定侵权。
  • 北京中周法律应用研究院在京成立 ——暨首届中周法治论坛在京成功举行

    5月20日,北京中周法律应用研究院(下称中周研究院)成立仪式暨首届中周法治论坛在全国政协礼堂成功举办。来自全国各地的司法界、学术界及国内外行业协会、社会组织和企业界的一百余位嘉宾出席了成立仪式和首届中周法治论坛。
  • 周末特稿|开放许可:制度优势与法律构造

    版权法中的开放许可是权利人自愿放弃部分权利,允许公众在一定范围内,遵循相关规则自由使用作品的许可模式。不同于产权化路径下的传统 “先授权后使用”的版权许可模式,开放许可以“部分所有权保留”的模式,允许公众在一定范围内自由使用作品。毋庸置疑,开放许可能够促进作品的有效利用与传播,其共享理念和运作模式与互联网产业的利益诉求高度契合。然而,长久以来,开放许可并未被真正纳入到版权法的调整范围。开放许可的制
  • “时事新闻”文章配图是否受著作权法保护

    在当前的司法实践中,对于时事新闻文章配图如何适用著作权法中的时事新闻条款存在较大的争议,不同法院对此作出了截然不同的裁判,有待统一裁判规则。
  • 专利务实|非治疗用途和治疗用途存在关联时可否授予专利权

    专利法规定疾病的诊断和治疗方法不能授予专利权,但疾病的诊断和治疗方法的范畴一直存在争议。本文介绍了EPO对于某种方法或用途涉及治疗用途和非治疗用途时的处理思路和典型判例,其中治疗用途和非治疗用途能否区分开来的处理方式值得借鉴。
  • 浅析体育赛事节目著作权保护问题

    日前,北京知识产权法院审结新浪诉凤凰网、乐视网在线直播中超赛事构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争一案(下称“新浪案”),单就著作权部分来看,判决结果是凤凰网和乐视网网络直播中超赛事的行为不构成侵权,而该案的一审法院则认定涉案行为所播出的赛事画面构成作品(但未明确为何种作品类型),进而认定侵权。
  • 北京中周法律应用研究院在京成立 ——暨首届中周法治论坛在京成功举行

    5月20日,北京中周法律应用研究院(下称中周研究院)成立仪式暨首届中周法治论坛在全国政协礼堂成功举办。来自全国各地的司法界、学术界及国内外行业协会、社会组织和企业界的一百余位嘉宾出席了成立仪式和首届中周法治论坛。
  • 周末特稿|开放许可:制度优势与法律构造

    版权法中的开放许可是权利人自愿放弃部分权利,允许公众在一定范围内,遵循相关规则自由使用作品的许可模式。不同于产权化路径下的传统 “先授权后使用”的版权许可模式,开放许可以“部分所有权保留”的模式,允许公众在一定范围内自由使用作品。毋庸置疑,开放许可能够促进作品的有效利用与传播,其共享理念和运作模式与互联网产业的利益诉求高度契合。然而,长久以来,开放许可并未被真正纳入到版权法的调整范围。开放许可的制
  • “时事新闻”文章配图是否受著作权法保护

    在当前的司法实践中,对于时事新闻文章配图如何适用著作权法中的时事新闻条款存在较大的争议,不同法院对此作出了截然不同的裁判,有待统一裁判规则。
  • 专利务实|非治疗用途和治疗用途存在关联时可否授予专利权

    专利法规定疾病的诊断和治疗方法不能授予专利权,但疾病的诊断和治疗方法的范畴一直存在争议。本文介绍了EPO对于某种方法或用途涉及治疗用途和非治疗用途时的处理思路和典型判例,其中治疗用途和非治疗用途能否区分开来的处理方式值得借鉴。
  • 浅析体育赛事节目著作权保护问题

    日前,北京知识产权法院审结新浪诉凤凰网、乐视网在线直播中超赛事构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争一案(下称“新浪案”),单就著作权部分来看,判决结果是凤凰网和乐视网网络直播中超赛事的行为不构成侵权,而该案的一审法院则认定涉案行为所播出的赛事画面构成作品(但未明确为何种作品类型),进而认定侵权。
  • 北京中周法律应用研究院在京成立 ——暨首届中周法治论坛在京成功举行

    5月20日,北京中周法律应用研究院(下称中周研究院)成立仪式暨首届中周法治论坛在全国政协礼堂成功举办。来自全国各地的司法界、学术界及国内外行业协会、社会组织和企业界的一百余位嘉宾出席了成立仪式和首届中周法治论坛。
  • 周末特稿|开放许可:制度优势与法律构造

    版权法中的开放许可是权利人自愿放弃部分权利,允许公众在一定范围内,遵循相关规则自由使用作品的许可模式。不同于产权化路径下的传统 “先授权后使用”的版权许可模式,开放许可以“部分所有权保留”的模式,允许公众在一定范围内自由使用作品。毋庸置疑,开放许可能够促进作品的有效利用与传播,其共享理念和运作模式与互联网产业的利益诉求高度契合。然而,长久以来,开放许可并未被真正纳入到版权法的调整范围。开放许可的制
  • 康信视点|浅析商业秘密保护与专利保护的关联性

    识产权中所涉及的工业产权中,以专利权最被人熟知,而每位权利人在获得专利权之初,除了如何申请专利之外,在权利人选择专利保护之前也通常在商业秘密和专利保护之间徘徊,所以对于专利代理人来说,在日常的咨询业务中也会经常面对客户的这类问题,基于此通常专利代理人会向客户解释专利保护和商业秘密的区别,如何界定商业秘密和潜在的专利申请,以及如果选择商业秘密后如何与专利保护相关联,因此商业秘密如何与专利保护相关联。
  • 7个字14万,电影《九层妖塔》一审被判字体侵权

    近日,书法家向佳红诉电影《九层妖塔》制作方梦想者电影(北京)有限公司、发行方北京环球艺动影业有限公司、投资方乐视影业(北京)有限公司、网络传播单位中国电影股份有限公司侵害著作权纠纷案一审结果出炉,北京市朝阳区人民法院判令四被告共同赔偿向佳红经济损失14万元,并登报致歉。
  • 最高法审理New Balance无效他人两件“N”字商标案

    5月15日上午,最高人民法院就再审开庭审理了两起历经波折的商标行政诉讼案件。这两起案件正是新平衡体育运动公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、琪尔特股份有限公司的两桩商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷。
  • 小米上市,不能回避的7800万元商标侵权诉讼

    小米涉及的专利纠纷已经在走法律程序,那么其作为被告之一的商标侵权纠纷又有何最新进展呢?
  • 猴子不能以自拍照版权受侵犯提起诉讼

    美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院裁定,猴子不能以他自己拍的照片版权受侵犯而提起诉讼。该案为 “冠猕猴纳鲁托诉斯莱特等人”案,已于2018年4月23日进行判决。
  • 专利务实|非治疗用途和治疗用途存在关联时可否授予专利权

    专利法规定疾病的诊断和治疗方法不能授予专利权,但疾病的诊断和治疗方法的范畴一直存在争议。本文介绍了EPO对于某种方法或用途涉及治疗用途和非治疗用途时的处理思路和典型判例,其中治疗用途和非治疗用途能否区分开来的处理方式值得借鉴。
  • 抄袭Tinder风波和解,探探美国版将重新设计

    还记得前不久因被认为模仿Tinder“左滑”“右滑”而被起诉的探探吗?据了解,这起案件最新的进展是,探探与原告Match Group(下称“Match”)达成了和解。
  • 美国专利商标局就SAS案发布PTAB指导意见

    美国专利商标局(USPTO)发布了指导意见,PTAB将只能受理或不受理所有被挑战的权利要求。
  • 康信视点|浅析商业秘密保护与专利保护的关联性

    识产权中所涉及的工业产权中,以专利权最被人熟知,而每位权利人在获得专利权之初,除了如何申请专利之外,在权利人选择专利保护之前也通常在商业秘密和专利保护之间徘徊,所以对于专利代理人来说,在日常的咨询业务中也会经常面对客户的这类问题,基于此通常专利代理人会向客户解释专利保护和商业秘密的区别,如何界定商业秘密和潜在的专利申请,以及如果选择商业秘密后如何与专利保护相关联,因此商业秘密如何与专利保护相关联。
  • 苏法视野|“聚能”商标 VS “聚能灶”

    今天的“苏法视野”刊登诚帝公司诉华帝公司、苏宁云商公司等侵害商标权纠纷案。