Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Henney, No. 00CV3516.
Decision Date | 18 January 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 00CV3516. |
Citation | 194 F.Supp.2d 442 |
Parties | WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. Jane E. HENNEY, M.D., etc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Douglas B. Farquhar, John R. Fleder, Robert A. Dormer, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, PC, Washington, DC, Edgar H. Haug, Barry S. White, Daniel G. Brown, Frommer Lawrence and Haug, LLP, New York City, for plaintiff.
Andrew E. Clark, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Jane E. Henney, M.D., defendant.
J. Hardin Marion, Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP, Baltimore, MD, Richard J. Stark, Evan R. Chesler, David R. Marriott, Cravath Swaine and Moore, New York City, for Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., defendant.
In an attempt to balance the national and private interests competing in the arena of patented pharmaceuticals, Congress some time ago enacted the so-called "Hatch-Waxman Amendments," establishing a split-the-baby scheme under which holders of patents on "pioneer drugs" were extended the carrot of what amounts to extended patent protection to account for delays in FDA approval of a "pioneer drug," in exchange for being whipped with the stick of an expedited, coat-tail procedure for FDA approval of competing, generic equivalents of the patented pharmaceutical (called an ANDA), along with what amount to fast-track patent challenge procedures, too complex to detail here. See 21 U.S.C. sections 355, 360cc and 35 U.S.C. sections 156, 271, and 282. See also, TriBio Labs., Inc. v. United States, 836 F.2d 135 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 818, 109 S.Ct. 57, 102 L.Ed.2d 35 (1988).
As part of this scheme, a patent holder can inform the FDA of the issuance of a pharmaceutical patent within 30 days, which results in the FDA's publication of the furnished patent information in something called the "Orange Book." (One assumes that, at least before everything went virtual, there really was a book and that it was orange.) See 21 U.S.C. section 355(c)(2) and 21 C.F.R. section 314.53(d)(3). One of the important aspects of the FDA's listing of a patent in the Orange Book arises from the patent challenge procedures under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. That is, listing triggers the right of the patent holder to sue the generic's maker for patent infringement, which carries with it a stay of the FDA's approval of the ANDA for up to 30 months, pending resolution of the patent challenge. See 35 U.S.C. section 271(e)(2)(A).
Indeed, the patent holder (Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS)) and the generic manufacturer involved in this case are no strangers to litigation over a predecessor patent to the one whose Orange Book listing (discussed fully post) triggered this particular lawsuit. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., 825 F.Supp. 58 (S.D.N.Y.1993), vacated, 26 F.3d 138, 1994 WL 129751 (Fed.Cir.1994). The earlier patent issued to BMS ('763) covered buspirone HCL (marketed as BuSpar), which received FDA approval in 1986. Not having prevailed in the patent litigation over '763, Danbury's ANDA for generic buspirone has been held up pending the expiry of that patent's exclusivity period, which was November 21, 2000. That same day, BMS was issued a new patent, '365, comprising, according to the declaration BMS filed with the FDA for Orange Book listing, "a method of use patent covering, among other things, a method of using BuSpar for all of its approved indications." The practical effect of this was a decision by the FDA to hold in abeyance the ANDA of Danbury (and of other generic marketers, such as Mylan) for generic buspirone. Danbury, upset by the FDA's listing of the patent in the Orange Book and the concomitant stay of its ANDA, attempted to persuade the FDA to de-list the excellent briefs have obviated the need for oral argument. Local Rule 105.6, D. Md.
Several preliminary observations are in order. Even though this case tangentially involves a patent matter over which the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction and to which its legal standards apply, it is clear that the standards for injunctive relief and for assessment of the merits ought to be those of the Fourth Circuit. And, certainly, if the movant for a preliminary injunction is plainly entitled to no relief at all, such as where the party sought to be enjoined is plainly entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law under summary judgment criteria, even the Fourth Circuit's most plaintiff-favorable view of the "likelihood of success" factor in the injunctive relief setting, reserved for those applicants in whose favor the balance of harms decidedly tips, i.e., that "grave or serious questions are presented," Blackwelder Furn. Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189, 196 (4th Cir.1977), is not satisfied, as a question devoid of merit as a matter of law can be neither grave nor serious.
Thus, the Court will turn to the merits. The Court has concluded that the federal defendants are entitled to summary judgment, and that, accordingly, no injunctive relief is appropriate.
This action is, at base, a quest for judicial review of a federal agency's final decision. As such, it is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. section 706. Under the APA, an agency's decision is entitled to deference, amounting to a presumption of validity, and can only be set aside on a showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with the law, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. v. Thompson
...ensure that the Orange Book only lists patents that actually claim approved drugs thus lies with NDA holders. See Watson Pharm. v. Henney, 194 F.Supp.2d 442, 445-46 (D.Md.2001) ("In making its decision to list a patent ... it is entirely appropriate and reasonable for the FDA to rely on the......
-
Hospira, Inc. v. Burwell
...that the Orange Book only lists patents that actually claim approved drugs thus lies with NDA holders. See Watson Pharm. v. Henney, 194 F.Supp.2d 442, 445-46 (D. Md. 2001) ("In making its decision to list a patent . . . it is entirely appropriate and reasonable for the FDA to rely on the pa......
-
Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. v. Thompson, Civil Action No. 02-1657 (ESH) (D. D.C. 1/6/2003)
...that the Orange Book only lists patents that actually claim approved drugs thus lies with NDA holders. See Watson Pharm., Inc. v. Henney, 194 F. Supp.2d 442, 445-46 (D. Md. 2001) ("In making its decision to list a patent . . . it is entirely appropriate and reasonable for the FDA to rely on......
-
Alphapharm Pty Ltd. v. Thompson, CIV.A. 03-2269.
...is a matter to be settled in private litigation between the parties, not as part of an agency adjudication. Watson Pharms., Inc. v. Henney, 194 F.Supp.2d 442, 445-46 (D.Md.2001) (citation and emphasis ...
-
Expanding the scope of the Hatch-Waxman Act's patent carve-out exception to the identical drug labeling requirement: closing the patent litigation loophole.
...the Orange Book), II.B (discussing the importance of process patents for biological generics). (54) See Watson Pharm., Inc. v. Henney, 194 F. Supp. 2d 442, 445 (D. Md. 2001) ("In making its decision to list a patent ... it is entirely appropriate and reasonable for the FDA to rely on the pa......
-
Generic pharmaceutical regulation in the United States with comparison to Europe: innovation and competition.
...known as the "Orange Book," is available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/orange/default.htm. See also Watson Pharms., Inc. v. Henney, 194 F. Supp. 2d 442, 445 (D. Md. 2001) (explaining that federal courts have ruled that the FDA plays merely a "ministerial" role in creating the Orange Book, rath......