Insights

In Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharms. USA Inc., C.A. No. 20-1630 (D. Del.), brand manufacturer Amarin brought an induced infringement claim against Hikma’s generic icosapent ethyl product, which lists Amarin’s Vascepa® as the reference listed drug. Vascepa was originally approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to treat severe hypertriglyceridemia, and later, Amarin obtained patents and approval for Vascepa as a treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in certain patient populations. Hikma’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for generic icosapent ethyl included a Section viii statement that Hikma was not seeking approval for the patented cardiovascular indication along with a “skinny label” that included only the indication for severe hypertriglyceridemia.

On March 13, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision about Patent Term Extensions (PTEs) under the Hatch-Waxman Act for reissue patents. In Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (No. 2023-2254), the Court confirmed that the PTE provision under 35 U.S.C. § 156 refers to the original patent’s issue date, not the reissue patent’s issue date. Thus, the issue date of the original patent should be used when calculating the extension period.

Senators John Cornyn(R-Texas), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) recently sponsored two bills, introduced on March 14th, that would affect patents in the pharmaceutical industry.

In a significant decision for generic drug manufacturers, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed that litigation expenses incurred in defending Hatch-Waxman patent lawsuits are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The ruling in Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-1320 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2025), resolves a key tax dispute, allowing tax deductions for these expenses in the year they are incurred rather than capitalizing them over time. This outcome provides clarity and potential tax benefits for qualifying businesses navigating the interplay of patent litigation and FDA drug approvals.

On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) handed down the latest decision in the COVID vaccine proceedings between Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”) and BioNTech SE (“BioNTech”) and ModernaTX, Inc. (“Moderna”). The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in two patents held by Moderna related to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine technology: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,702,600 (the “’600 patent”) and 10,933,127 (the “’127 patent”), both entitled “Betacoronavirus mRNA Vaccine.”

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding a 2022 memorandum issued by former USPTO Director Kathi Vidal, entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation,” which had curtailed discretionary denials of PTAB post-grant proceedings. The February 2025 announcement directs parties to refer to PTAB precedent for guidance, including the decisions in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) and Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020). The announcement further indicates that, to the extent any PTAB or Director Review decisions relied on the 2022 memorandum, the portions of those decisions shall not be binding or persuasive on the PTAB.

On February 18, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” that directs independent agencies (as well as Cabinet Departments and their sub-agencies) to route all “proposed and final significant regulatory” and budgetary actions through the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. If implemented to its full extent, this action will significantly strengthen the authority of the White House by weakening the political autonomy of these independent agencies. As an assertion of the President’s inherent powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, it also stands to weaken congressional influence over these independent agencies, both through the appropriations and confirmation processes.

On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order, Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security (“Trump’s FCPA Order” or the “Order”), whose stated goal is “to restore American competitiveness and security by ordering revised, reasonable enforcement guidelines” for the FCPA. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restores American Competitiveness and Security in FCPA Enforcement (“Fact Sheet”). Trump’s FCPA Order is part of his administration’s policy of “eliminating excessive barriers to American commerce abroad.”

On January 6, with increased attention and scrutiny from patients, providers, developers, and payors on the accelerated approval pathway for drugs, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released new draft guidance for industry on what it means for a drug’s confirmatory trial to be “underway” under section 506(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

On December 20, 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that five device patents had been improperly listed in the Orange Book by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as claiming a drug, and ordering that they be delisted.

Before leaving for an extended recess period ahead of the November general election, Congress left unfinished several proposals with ramifications for generic and biosimilar drug competition. This client alert summarizes some of that legislation and possible next steps in the “lame duck” period before the end of the year.

The EU legal and policy framework regarding critical medicines and medicine shortages is rapidly changing.  In the past 12 months alone, there have been numerous developments: from the ‘Non-Paper’; to the Communication on ‘Addressing medicine shortages’; and the launch of the Critical Medicines Alliance.  In the next 12 months, there is likely to be similar developments – including a possible draft proposal for a ‘Critical Medicines Act’.  As the new regulatory framework becomes clearer, pharma companies will need to understand it, and prepare for the impact it will have.

Examiner interviews are an optional but important and effective part of patent examination process that are beneficially conducted early and, in some cases, more than once during patent prosecution.  Interviews are in-person, telephone or online conferences between the Examiner and the patent attorney or patent agent representing the patent applicant. When conducted early in the patent examination process, interviews may reduce the time required to obtain a patent and increase the odds of obtaining an allowance.  As discussed below, interviews can help foster a cooperative interaction with the examiner to supercharge the prosecution process.

As reported in earlier Client Alerts, on November 7, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission challenged 100 patents as improperly listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” publication, commonly known as the Orange Book. The FTC sent warning letters to ten drug and medical device manufacturers identifying patents for inhalers, autoinjectors and anti-inflammatory multi-dose bottles that the FTC believes are improperly listed. In response, some manufacturers withdrew their patents, and others agreed to cap certain out-of-pocket costs for their drugs, resulting in a “victory lap” of media activity from the FTC in April.

A warning letter posted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 18, 2024 offers a first glimpse into how FDA may enforce its new regulatory scheme for products that fall within the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA)’s purview. While MoCRA was enacted in December 2022 and many of its provisions became enforceable on December 29, 2023, until now, many have wondered how FDA will exercise its new enforcement powers.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published revised draft guidelines in the Federal Register on promotional labeling and advertising considerations for the biologic and biosimilar industry, updating guidance from 2020. The quick revisions emphasize the fast-changing and rapidly growing nature of this industry.

As reported in an earlier Client Alert, on November 7, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission challenged 100 patents as improperly listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” publication, commonly known as the Orange Book. The FTC sent warning letters to ten drug and medical device manufacturers identifying patents for inhalers, autoinjectors and anti-inflammatory multi-dose bottles that the FTC believes are improperly listed. In the letters, the FTC indicated it is using the FDA’s regulatory dispute process to challenge the listing of these patents in the Orange Book because improperly listed patents may violate antitrust laws and impede competition.    

Following federal lawmakers’ initiative to lower prescription drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, several states have taken similar steps to limit certain drugs’ prices. Drug affordability for consumers is a top priority for federal and state lawmakers and regulators because it is a bipartisan issue that directly impacts consumers’ wallets. With negotiations between the federal government and drug manufacturers over 10 drugs’ prices for Medicare beneficiaries well underway under the Inflation Reduction Act, 11 states, including Maryland and Colorado, have created drug affordability review boards to more directly tackle rising prices for both brand and generic drugs.[1] And another 12 states have pending legislation to create these boards.[2] 

On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a case with significant implications for the application of the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This case involved the importation of two transcatheter heart valve systems by Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., an India-based medical device company, to San Francisco for a medical conference. According to Meril, these heart valve systems, part of Meril’s Myval System designed to treat heart disease, were never displayed or offered for sale at the conference but were instead stored in a bag in a hotel closet and later in a storage room. The Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Meril brings to light the nuances of applying the safe harbor provision in patent infringement cases.

On March 1, 2024, Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware granted the government’s motion for summary judgment in the first substantive ruling on the constitutionality of the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”).  The court first held that AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca AB’s (collectively, “AstraZeneca”) lacked Article III standing to challenge the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).  The court then rejected AstraZeneca’s challenge to the IRA as an unconstitutional taking on the merits because, in its view, AstraZeneca “ha[d] not identified a property interest protected by the Constitution that is put in jeopardy by the Program.”[1] The court’s opinion comes on the eve of oral argument in a closely-followed related case in the District of New Jersey and marks a significant development in IRA jurisprudence.