Transcript View Attachment (PDF) - Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto

Recent Developments In
Parties’ Obligations In
Hatch-Waxman Act Litigation
Brian V. Slater
Presented at American Conference Institute’s
Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycles,
New York, October 7, 2009
Obligations of Parties in ANDA Cases
 During suit, ANDA ¶IV filers and patentees both have the same
obligations:
– to not go forward on baseless or frivolous positions under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11
– to “reasonably cooperate in expediting the action.” 21 U.S.C.
§ 355(j)(5)(B)(iii).
 Before suit, ANDA ¶IV filers and patentees have different obligations as
a result of Hatch-Waxman scheme
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
2
ANDA ¶IV Filer’s Pre-suit Duty of Care
 An ANDA ¶IV filer must certify patent is not infringed or invalid “to the
best of his knowledge”. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii).
 “The Hatch-Waxman Act thus imposes a duty of care on an ANDA
certifier.” Yamanouchi Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., 231
F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
 Violation of duty may constitute “exceptional case” supporting award of
attorney fees to prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(e)(4), 285:
– Yamanouchi, 231 F.3d at 1347 (attorneys fees award where
baseless ¶IV cert. and chemistry errors in pre-suit opinion).
– Filing of ANDA alone cannot support willful infringement finding for
purpose of awarding attorney fees. Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Apotex,
Inc., 376 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
3
Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 549 F.3d 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 2008)
 CAFC affirmed award of $16.8 million in attorneys fees after failed
obviousness challenge to patent on Actos®, based on
– baseless certification letters with scientific errors that failed to
present even a prima facie obviousness case; and
– litigation misconduct, including:
 switching to obviousness theory that failed to explain why prior
art compound would be considered the “lead”
 raising untimely advice of counsel defense
 asserting “frivolous” inequitable conduct claims
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
4
Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 549 F.3d 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 2008)
 CAFC rejected argument that Yamanouchi improperly sets forth a
simple negligence standard for attorneys fees awards in ANDA cases
– Rather, Yamanouchi held that applicants fail to meet duty of care
when they file baseless certifications. Takeda, 549 F.3d at 1388.
 CAFC rejected argument that decision would “chill” other ANDA patent
challenges by requiring inclusion of every theory in ¶IV notice
– District court did not fault litigants merely for changing theories but
for “baseless ANDA filings and litigation in bad faith.” Id. at
1389-90.
 Cert. denied October 5, 2009
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
5
Patentee’s Pre-suit Obligations

Patentee’s complaint -- like every court paper -- must meet Rule 11
requirements that
– “to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after
an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances”:


It is not being presented for any improper purpose

The claims and legal contentions are warranted by existing law or a
nonfrivolous extension thereof

The factual contentions have evidentiary support or likely will have
evidentiary support after further investigation/discovery
“In the context of patent infringement actions, we have interpreted Rule 11 to
require, at a minimum, that an attorney interpret the asserted patent claims
and compare the accused device with those claims before filing a claim
alleging infringement.” Q-Pharma, Inc. v. Andrew Jergens Co., 360 F.3d 1295,
1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
6
Celgene Corp. v. KV Pharm. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 55700 (D.N.J.
July 22, 2008)
 Patentee allegedly conducted no pre-suit investigation other than to
determine that the ANDA was filed.
 District Court declined to find Rule 11 violation:
– “The pre-filing requirements stated in Q-Pharma make sense only in
the context of a typical patent infringement case, and not in the
context of a Hatch-Waxman ANDA case.” Id. at *7.
– “Because the Act has made the act of submitting an ANDA itself an
act of infringement, in a Hatch-Waxman ANDA case, the attorney
can conduct a reasonable and competent inquiry into the act of
infringement by investigating whether a relevant ANDA has been
filed.” Id.
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
7
Celgene Corp. v. KV Pharm. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 55700 (D.N.J.
July 22, 2008)
– “Celgene and its attorneys had no pre-filing obligation to investigate
whether KV's methylphenidate drug actually infringed Celgene's
patents.” Id. at *8.
– To hold otherwise would “put pharmaceutical patent owners in an
untenable position” Id. at *10.
 It would require patent owners to perform infringement analysis
on “possibly nonexistent product”.
 Patent owner has only 45 days to make what is likely to be a
“highly technical infringement analysis,” and decide whether to
sue. Id.
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
8
Summary of Pre-Suit Obligations
 ANDA ¶IV filer has duty of care based on statute, the violation of which
may lead to attorney fees award if it loses
 Under Celgene, patentee’s pre-suit obligations are satisfied by
investigating whether a relevant ANDA has been filed
 Remains to be seen whether other courts will follow Celgene or will
require further investigations, and if so, what type of investigation
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
9
Modification of the 30-Month Stay
– 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii) provides 30-month stay of FDA approval
of ANDA if suit is brought within 45-day window
 District courts have discretion to shorten or lengthen the 30month stay where “either party to the action failed to
reasonably cooperate in expediting the action.” Id.
– In Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Biovail Corporation, 276 F.3d
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the CAFC held that district court could not
use a party’s allegedly improper conduct at the FDA as a reason to
modify the 30-month stay
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
10
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc., 557 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2009)
 Facts:
– Teva modified particle size specification of its API and method of
measuring particle size eight months before trial
– Teva subsequently produced new samples and 27,000 pages,
some of which were produced after close of fact discovery
 District Court extended the 30-month stay to
 “provide Lilly with a reasonable time for its expert to test and
report on” the samples and for Lilly to prepare for trial. Eli Lilly,
557 F.3d at 1350.
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
11
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms USA, Inc., 557 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2009)
 CAFC affirmed extension of 30-month stay finding that district court did
not abuse its discretion
– “Trial courts, thus, may shorten or extend the thirty-month statutory
period based on the parties' uncooperative discovery practices
before the court.” Id. at 1350.
 Judge Prost dissented:
– District court failed to make findings that Teva failed to reasonably
cooperate in expediting the action
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
12
Modification of the 30-Month Stay - Summary
 Modification of the 30-month stay is within the district court’s discretion.
 Actions outside the litigation cannot lead to modification of the 30-month
stay (e.g., FDA proceedings)
 Discovery delays can lead to modification of the 30-month stay.
 The extent of discovery violations required for modification is unsettled.
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
13
NEW YORK
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
212.218.2100
WASHINGTON
975 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1405
202.530.1010
CALIFORNIA
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 2000
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7130
714.540.8700
FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO © 2009
|
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
14