Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 202: Life Sciences Startups and Industry Developments with Gil Price, Life Sciences Leader
The Future of Laboratory Testing Just Got a Little Clearer: FDA's Final Rule on LDTs – Diagnosing Health Care
Video: Food for Thought and Thoughts on Food: Innovating USDA Science with Sanah Baig, Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
The FDA's Response to AI Medical Innovation — The Good Bot Podcast
FDA Releases Laboratory-Developed Tests Final Rule – Thought Leaders in Health Law
Litigating Nutrition: Class Action Battles Over Dietary Supplements – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Changes in FDA, Cannabis Policies and AI Developments
Ad Law Tool Kit Show – Episode 2 – Marketing FDA-Regulated Products
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 18
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 17
A Look Into the FDA and USDA Regulatory Regimes
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 167: Dr. Ehsan Samei & Dr. Susan Halabi, Triangle CERSI
Podcast: Dietary Supplements – Navigating the Regulatory Maze – Diagnosing Health Care
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 164: Emily Chee, US General Manager of Novartis Gene Therapies
Podcast: Direct Access Laboratory Testing - Future FDA Proposed Regulations on LDTs - Diagnosing Health Care
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 14
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 11
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 10
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 9
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 8
In 2019, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sued Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. for patent infringement in the Northern District of California, with Fenwick representing Meril in the district court case and the recent appellate...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., has garnered significant attention, especially concerning the application of the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. §...more
The safe harbor exception in 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) applies “solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information” to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Federal Circuit interpreted the...more
A fractured affirmance of a district court decision to dismiss an infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) was the occasion for the Federal Circuit to illustrate the continued debate over the scope of the safe harbor...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) safe harbor protecting certain infringing acts undertaken for regulatory approval applied to an alleged infringer’s importation of...more
On March 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., addressing whether the act of importing two heart valve systems for a medical conference was within the...more
On January 5, 2024, in litigation between REGENXBIO and Sarepta Therapeutics, Judge Richard Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware District Court granted summary judgment for Sarepta and ruled that...more
Gain a comprehensive understanding of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA essentials, a critical competency for legal and business professionals in the biopharmaceutical arena. Attend ACI’s Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA Proficiency Series...more
The Federal Circuit will consider the relevance of an alleged infringer’s intent in a safe harbor analysis in the appeal of Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Scis. Pvt.1 The District Court granted summary judgment that...more
Congress’s protection from patent infringement for drug developers created under the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 (Act) has been extensively litigated over the past three+ decades, but the scope of the so-called “safe harbor...more
Are patented products that are not themselves subject to FDA approval, but used to develop products that are subject to FDA approval, protected under the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor? While courts have reached different...more
On January 4, 2022, Judge Andrews from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.’s (“Sarepta”) Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent...more
It has been nearly 10 years since the U.S. Biosimilars Pathway (the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act) was enacted. The first biosimilar product in U.S. history was approved and launched in 2015. Ten biosimilars...more
A recent case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware demonstrates how nuanced safe harbor protection under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) "non-infringement" can be for a pharmaceutical company developing a biosimilar...more
This somewhat arcane question took on significant, real-world consequences when Judge Andrews of the Delaware District Court denied Hospira’s JMOL to overturn a jury’s $70 million award to Amgen for Hospira’s manufacture and...more
The safe harbor defense has been of issue in two recent cases in which the bounds of the protection has been analyzed. Section 271(e)(1) carves out an exception to patent infringement liability when otherwise-infringing...more
In one of the first Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigations to reach trial, a jury on Friday awarded Amgen $70 million in damages for Pfizer’s infringement of one of Amgen’s expired patents...more
The Supreme Court has been asked to review whether the safe harbor established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) encompasses a generic drug manufacturer’s bioequivalence testing performed only as a condition of maintaining FDA...more
Addressing issues of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) and the safe harbor provision of § 271(e), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling of non-infringement under § 271(g) and...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed that a generic pharmaceutical company’s use of post-approval quality control testing was not “making” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). See Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Teva...more
Addressing the scope of the safe harbor provision of § 271(e)(1), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, holding that supplying an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) to the filer of...more
Case Name: Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 2014-1736, -1737, -1738, -1739, -1740, -1741, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16908 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2015) (Circuit Judges Moore, Mayer, and Linn presiding; Opinion by Linn, J.) (Appeal...more
On May 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit confirmed in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that the safe harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) can shield post-FDA approval activities from liability for...more
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