The Hatch-Waxman Act and How it Works: Balancing Incentives to Innovate with the Need for Affordable Drugs Minnesota Intellectual Property Association Biotech / Chem Law June 4, 2009 Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 Pub. L. No. 98-417 Codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 68b-68c, 70b (1994); 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 note, 355, 360cc (1994); 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Balancing Innovation with Affordability “ . . . the American people will save money, and yet receive the best medicine that pharmaceutical science can provide.” – President Reagan, Sept. 24, 1984 Background • 1962 Amendments to FDCA required proof of safety and efficacy • Lengthy approval period for innovators = defacto shortening of patent term • Onerous approval requirements for generics = “off-patent” drugs with no generic competition Key Features of the HatchWaxman Act • Streamlined generic approval process • “Safe Harbor” for pre-approval activities • Patent term restoration to offset lengthy regulatory approval process • Non-patent exclusivity for innovators and generics • Framework for patent notification and litigation Generic Market Share 70 60 50 40 % generic Rx 30 20 10 0 1984 2000 2008 Source: Gary Buehler presentation, FDA CDER; IMS Health 2009 study commissioned by GPhA Generic Market Share In 2008, generic sales accounted for 69% of prescriptions written and 16% of all prescription dollars spent 250 200 brand sales $228b generic sales $58.5b 150 100 50 0 2007 Source: IMS Health 2009 study commissioned by GPhA Key Features of the HatchWaxman Act • Streamlined generic approval process • “Safe Harbor” for pre-approval activities • Patent term restoration to offset lengthy regulatory approval process • Non-patent exclusivity for innovators and generics • Framework for patent notification and litigation Requirements for generic approval • Same active ingredient(s) • Same route of administration • Same dosage form • Same strength • Same conditions of use Compared to reference listed drug (RLD) - (brand name product) Requirements for generic approval 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. NDA Chemistry Manufacturing Controls Labeling Testing Animal Studies Clinical Studies Bioavailability 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ANDA Chemistry Manufacturing Controls Labeling Testing Bioequivalence Key Features of the HatchWaxman Act • Streamlined generic approval process • “Safe Harbor” for pre-approval activities • Patent term restoration to offset lengthy regulatory approval process • Non-patent exclusivity for innovators and generics • Framework for patent notification and litigation “Safe Harbor” for pre-approval activities before the Act, a generic manufacturer who used a patented drug during the patent term for the purpose of conducting tests to submit information to the FDA committed patent infringement Roche Products v. Bolar, 733 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1984) “Safe Harbor” for pre-approval activities 35 U.S.C. § 271 (e)(1): It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into 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 or veterinary biological products. “Safe Harbor” for pre-approval activities Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 (2005) statutory text “provides a wide berth for the use of patented drugs in activities related to the federal regulatory process” use of patented compounds in preclinical studies is protected . . . as long as there is a reasonable basis for believing that the experiments will produce “the types of information that are relevant to an IND or NDA.” Key Features of the HatchWaxman Act • Streamlined generic approval process • “Safe Harbor” for pre-approval activities • Patent term restoration to offset lengthy regulatory approval process • Non-patent exclusivity for innovators and generics • Framework for patent notification and litigation Patent Term Restoration Formula Under 35 USC §156: 50% of the time spent in initial clinical trials (IND); PLUS 100% of the time spent in new drug application (NDA) approval process Patent Term Restoration Under 35 USC §156 Other Requirements: No more than 5 years or up to 14 years from date of FDA approval Patent not expired No previous extension under this provision First permitted commercial marketing or use Patent Term Restoration Under 35 USC §156 NOT the same as Patent Term Adjustment under § 154 (delays in PTO review) Extension is in addition to any adjustment under § 154 Key Features of the HatchWaxman Act • Streamlined generic approval process • “Safe Harbor” for pre-approval activities • Patent term restoration to offset lengthy regulatory approval process • Non-patent exclusivity for innovators and generics • Framework for patent notification and litigation Innovator Non-Patent Exclusivity Exclusivity Regardless of Existence of Patent NCE (New Chemical Entity): 5 years New active ingredient, new molecules, new salts FDA can’t even accept a generic application for 5 years (4 years if a PIV challenge) Effectively 7 ½ years if there is a PIV challenge after 4 years New product/new use /supplemental exclusivity: 3 years (new clinical studies to support a new indication, formulation, salt, dosage regimen, etc.; enantiomers) Innovator Non-Patent Exclusivity Exclusivity Regardless of Existence of Patent Orphan Drug: 7 years If FDA approval is for disease affecting less than 200,000 U.S. citizens Pediatric use: 6 months in addition to existing exclusivity or patent term If pediatric study is undertaken in response to FDA written request Key Features of the HatchWaxman Act • Streamlined generic approval process • “Safe Harbor” for pre-approval activities • Patent term restoration to offset lengthy regulatory approval process • Non-patent exclusivity for innovators and generics • Framework for patent notification and litigation Framework for patent notification and litigation NDA holder must notify FDA of any patent that claims a drug or method of using a drug and with respect to which a claim of infringement can reasonably be asserted FDA publishes in “Orange Book” Active Ingredient Search Results from "OB_Rx" table for query on "rosuvastatin." Appl No TE Code RL D Active Ingredient Dosage Form; Route 021366 No ROSUVASTATIN CALCIUM TABLET; ORAL 021366 No ROSUVASTATIN CALCIUM TABLET; ORAL 021366 Yes ROSUVASTATIN CALCIUM TABLET; ORAL 021366 No ROSUVASTATIN CALCIUM TABLET; ORAL Strength Proprietary Name 10MG CRESTOR IPR 20MG CRESTOR IPR 40MG CRESTOR IPR 5MG CRESTOR IPR Applicant Patent and Exclusivity Search Results from query on Appl No 021366 Product 002 in the OB_Rx list. Patent Data Appl No Prod No Patent No Patent Expiration 021366 002 6316460 Aug 4, 2020 021366 002 6858618 Dec 17, 2021 021366 002 RE37314 Jan 8, 2016 Drug Substance Claim Drug Product Claim Patent Use Code Y U-618 Y Exclusivity Data Appl No Prod No Exclusivity Code Exclusivity Expiration 021366 002 NCE Aug 12, 2008 021366 002 I-573 Nov 6, 2011 021366 002 I-547 Nov 8, 2010 Delist Requested Generic applicant patent certifications ANDA Certification Patent status Paragraph I: No Patent info in Orange Book Paragraph II: Patent expired Paragraph III: No product launch until patent expires Paragraph IV: Patent is invalid,unenforceable, or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug product for which the ANDA is submitted Generic exclusivity First ANDA filer with para. IV certification gets: 180 days of exclusivity against other generics Starts with first marketing or final appeals court decision Notice Letter Generic applicant who files a paragraph IV certification must notify the patent and NDA holder with a detailed statement Patent/NDA holder has 45 days to sue Generic applicant can file a declaratory judgment action if not sued Submitting an ANDA with a PIV certification is an act of infringement 35 USC § 271: (a) direct infringement (b) induced infringement (c) contributory infringement (e)(1) safe harbor Submitting an ANDA with a PIV certification is an act of infringement 35 USC § 271 (e)(2): It shall be an act of infringement to submit – (A) an [ANDA] Act for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent . . . Submitting an ANDA with a PIV certification is an act of infringement “somewhat artificial” act of infringement that vests district courts with jurisdiction – Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661 (1990) Automatic Stay of FDA Approval Initiation of Lawsuit means FDA cannot approve an ANDA until: Final court ruling; Patent expires; or 30 months from notification Remedies for infringement § 271(e) (4) For an act of infringement described in paragraph (2) — (A) court can set approval date as end of patent, (B) grant injunctive relief; (C) no damages unless there has been commercial manufacture, use, or sale . The remedies prescribed by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) are the only remedies which may be granted by a court for an act of infringement described in paragraph (2), except that a court may award attorney fees under section 285. Hatch-Waxman Summary Innovator gets: Patent term extension/restoration Guaranteed marketing exclusivity period Automatic 30 month stay of FDA approval if litigation Generic Gets: Streamlined approval process First-to-file 180-day marketing exclusivity Safe harbor and possibility of definitive decision prior to launch Example timeline: rosuvastatin 440 patent filing date 06/12/92 11/9/93 8/9/98 8/27/98 6/26/01 8/7/01 440 patent issues IND becomes effective reissue application NDA filed Re 314 patent issues NDA approved - product marketing begins 8/12/03 8/12/07 generic applicant first-to file date 12/9/07 8/12/08 infringement suits filed NCE marketing exclusivity expires 2/10/10 2/12/11 trial scheduled 30 month automatic stay expires 6/12/12 1/8/16 patent expiration date following extension Original patent expiration date By Edward J. Pardon