Blog March 23, 2020
Acts After Regulatory Submission Do Not Enjoy Blanket Protection Under the Section 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor
- Person title
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2015) (Prost, LOURIE, Gilstrap) (D. Md.: Quarles) (3 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit vacates judgment of noninfringement.
Classen's patent claims methods for analyzing data on a commercially available drug to identify new uses, and then commercializing such uses. In 2001, Elan initiated a study of its own approved drug Skelaxin to assess whether its bioavailability was affected by administration with or without food. After the study indicated that administration with food increased absorption, Elan made various submissions to the FDA and obtained approval to supplement Skelaxin's label. In late 2001 and early 2002, Elan filed patent applications relating to its clinical results. It subsequently sold Skelaxin according to the supplemented label.
The district court correctly found that Elan's study and its submissions to the FDA could not infringe because they were within section 271(e)(1)'s safe harbor for preparing and transmitting regulatory submissions. It did not matter that they occurred after initial approval—they served the same function of ensuring safety and efficacy as pre-approval studies, and they were necessary to approval of the label change.
However, the district court erred in failing to determine whether other acts (e.g., filing patent applications and selling Skelaxin under its new label) were themselves infringement. Unlike Telectronics Pacing Sys. v. Ventritex, Inc., 982 F.2d 1520 (Fed. Cir. 1992), which held that subsequent use or dissemination of information from an exempted clinical study was permissible because it was not itself a possible act of infringement, here, Classen alleged that the acts here were themselves infringements. A remand was thus necessary to consider this issue, although the Federal Circuit observed that the filing of a patent application is "generally not an infringement of a patent," nor is (without more) placing information on a product label following FDA approval of a label supplementation. Slip op. at 12.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert: Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. - What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Article December 27, 2022
Senior Principal John Dragseth Authors IPWatchdog Article "Top Federal Circuit Decisions of 2022 That No One Told You About"
Blog July 6, 2021
Federal Circuit Finds Digital Camera an Abstract Idea
Blog June 24, 2021
Legal Alert: What to Know about the Supreme Court's Arthrex Decision
Blog June 22, 2021
Legal Alert: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in U.S. v. Arthrex
Article January 4, 2021
Fish Attorneys Author Law360 Article, "Lessons For 2021 From Fed. Circ. Post-Grant Review Cases"
Q&A November 12, 2020
Q&A with Riqui Bonilla and Nitika Gupta Fiorella for Corporate Counsel Business Journal
Article September 1, 2020
Fish Attorneys Author Biosimilar Development Article, "An Update On 2020 U.S. Biosimilars Regulation & Litigation"
Article July 7, 2020
Fish Attorneys Author Article in Bloomberg Law, "INSIGHT: SCOTUS Decision on Computer Fraud Act Could Impact Trade Secrets"
Blog June 26, 2020
First Circuit Finds Device Patent Improperly Listed in the Orange Book
Blog May 12, 2020