What happens if someone invents an analytical process for
demonstrating biosimilarity and patents that process, particularly in a
situation where there are no practicable alternative methods available for
demonstrating biosimilarity? If the innovator company that brought the original
biologic to market owns the patent, it could potentially prevent competitors
from bringing a biosimilar to market, because they could not demonstrate biosimilarity
required for FDA approval without infringing the patent. Alternatively, if a biosimilar
manufacture had such a patent it could exclude other biosimilar manufacturers
from bringing their products to market. That is, unless the Hatch-Waxman safe
harbor under 35 USC 271(e)(1) applies.
A divided panel of the Federal Circuit actually addressed this
issue on August 3, 2012, in Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals. The particular drug in question, Lovenox (enoxaparin),
it is technically not a biologic, but it is chemically complex and raises the
same issues cited above in connection with demonstrating biosimilarity or
interchangeability of a biosimilar. Enoxaparin
is a low molecular weight version of heparin, a naturally occurring
polysaccharide. The chemical structure of heparin is chemically diverse, with
molecules ranging in molecular weight between 5000 and 40,000 Da. There are
also differences in disaccharide units and in the modifications to individual sugar
units that vary from molecule to molecule.
In order to market a generic version of Lovenox, FDA
requires the generic manufacturer to demonstrate a sufficient level of chemical
similarity in terms of molecular weight and chemical structure between branded
Lovenox and the generic enoxaparin. Establishing this similarity was apparently
not trivial, and Momenta (a generic manufacturer) obtained a patent claiming a
method of performing the analysis, US Patent Number 7,575,886. Momenta received
FDA approval to market generic enoxaparin in July 2010, and begin generating
sales revenue of $260 million per quarter.
In September 2011, Amphastar received FDA approval to market
its own generic version of enoxaparin, and momenta sued Amphastar for infringing its patent. Amphastar defended
itself by arguing that its use of the patented method fell under the safe
harbor of 35 USC 271(e)(1), which provides:
it shall not be enacted infringement to make, use, offer to
sell, or so within the United States * * * a patented invention* * * solely for
uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under
a federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs ** * .
In particular, Amphastar argued that it was required to
perform the tests to ensure that the product complies with FDA requirements,
and that it retained the data so that it could submit it to FDA as necessary.
In response, Momenta argued that the safe harbor did not
apply under the circumstances, since the product had already been approved and
because Amphastar did not actually submit the information to FDA.
The District Court sided with Momenta, finding that the safe
harbor did not apply under the circumstances, and issued a preliminary
injunction. The Federal Circuit's 2011 opinion in Classen Immunotherapies v. BiogenicIDEC would seem to support this decision. In Classen, the panel stated that
"[271(e)(1)] does not apply to information that may be routinely reported
to the FDA, long after marketing approval has been obtained."
On appeal, a divided panel reversed and remanded, finding
that the safe harbor does apply to Amphastar’s activities, essentially because
the patented test is being used to confirm that its generic product meets the
FDA requirement of similarity to branded Lovenox. The majority opinion is
written by Judge Moore, who wrote a dissent in Classen arguing for a more
expanded interpretation of the safe harbor that would encompass post-approval submissions
to FDA.
In Momenta, Judge Moore found that a plain reading of the
statute did not limit the safe harbor to pre-approval FDA submissions, and the
legislative intent was to promote the availability of generic drugs. She also
felt that the requirement that data be generated for "submission" to FDA was satisfied
in this case because FDA regulations required Amphastar to test the drugs for
similarity and to maintain the records for one year so they would be available
for FDA inspection.
Judge Moore acknowledged that the Classen decision is
binding precedent, but she reads Classen as being limited to cases involving
"routine submissions" to FDA. In the present case, she found that Amphastar’s
actions are not routine, since the company is required to make the data
available for FDA in order to maintain FDA approval, in contrast with the
optional "routine submissions" at issue in Classen.
Judge Moore also rejected Momenta's argument that the safe
harbor did not apply because there were alternate methods available for
performing the necessary analysis. She found that the safe harbor applies even
if FDA would accept the use of other, non-patented testing methods.
In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Rader (who wrote the
majority opinion in Classen) argued that the safe harbor does not apply in this
case, and under Classen should not be available for infringing activities
relating solely to post-approval FDA submissions. He basically found Judge
Moore's decision inconsistent with the majority opinion in Classen, but
entirely consistent with her dissent.
Judge Rader adopts a fundamentally different
characterization of the Amphastar’s infringing activity than the majority.
While the majority finds that the patented test is used to generate data
necessary to satisfy FDA regulatory requirements, Judge Rader finds that the
method is also being used for the purpose of manufacturing the product. Neither
characterization seems implausible to me. Of course the test is being used to
analyze the product, but Judge Rader's point is that in order to manufacture FDA-approved
generic enoxaparin, it is necessary to conduct the analytical test to ensure
that the product meets specifications.
I think the outcome in the case hinges largely upon this
distinction between analyzing a product and manufacturing a product. If we
accept Judge Rader's view that the patent covers a method used in manufacturing
the drug, then the patented invention fails to satisfy the statutory
requirement of being used "solely for uses reasonably related to the
development and submission of information" to FDA, and the safe harbor
should not apply. However, if we characterize the patented method as a method
of product analysis, Judge Moore's decision seems reasonable.
In any event, a significant aspect of the decision is that
it apparently limits the ability of innovators and biosimilar manufacturers
from using patents covering methods of product analysis to keep biosimilar
competitors off the market. This could
be important as biosimilar manufacturers seek to enter the market in
competition with innovators and other biosimilar companies.
6 comments:
Hi i looked your blog i got here more informations about new stuff!! I want to know a more informations about this new stuff.So can you explain me clear!
Get Instagram Followers
Great news
I truly love your site.. Great colors & theme. Did you develop this amazing site yourself? Please reply back as I’m planning to create my own site and would like to learn where you got this from or exactly what the theme is called. Appreciate it!
Good job. Thanks for sharing the issue.
Nice share of this wonderful post. Good issue.
Exceptional submit I enjoy ones post love how we defined as much as possible, you do a great job many of others that you as a result of in which kind of informative websites present recognition for you to us associated with a lot of things. My spouse and i go through other sorts of intriguing weblogs out of your internet sites in addition to My business is much engaged with your blogs abilities, When i additionally begun to compose websites and this also sort information sites definitely assist me personally out and about. When i currently book marked your current web site in addition to contributed your current sites for you to my own friends not just everyone nevertheless them all just like your running a blog skills, hope anyone write far more useful blogs this way 1 as well as all the best for your long term blogs.
Jimmy Wilson from Superman Leather Jacket
Post a Comment