In the recent opinion of Amarin Pharma v. Hikma Pharms. U.S., the District Court of Delaware dismissed Amarin’s complaint against Hikma for induced infringement of three patents when Hikma used a skinny label to carve out a patented indication. However, the court held that Amarin sufficiently pled to proceed with the complaint against an insurer, Health Net, for induced infringement.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.
On January 1, 2022, the updated Code on Interactions with Health Care Professionals, published by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), became effective. The updates reflect fraud and abuse concerns voiced by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General in its November 2020 Special Fraud Alert. While it is not a legal document, companies that adopt the code’s rules are more likely to comply with federal fraud and abuse laws like the Anti-Kickback Statute.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.
On October 28, 2021, Deputy United States Attorney General Lisa Monaco issued a memorandum marking the first major announcement on corporate criminal enforcement from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) under the Biden Administration (“Monaco Memo”). Most notably, this memorandum: (1) reinstates the Individual Accountability Policy originally announced in the Yates Memo and (2) guides prosecutors to look at all prior misconduct, not just those instances similar to the misconduct at issue in the present investigation.
To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris attorneys Rick Ball, Eric Breslin and Brittany Pagnotta, please visit the Duane Morris White-Collar Criminal Law Blog.
On August 2, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued its final rule modifying its regulations on the intended use of medical devices, prescription drugs and biologics. Most importantly, the final rule repeals the 2017 rule’s “knowing clause,” which seemed to imply that a party may be accountable for off-label use if the party “should have known” the product was likely to be used off-label.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.
Duane Morris supports a proprietary platform in Boston that permits emerging life science and med device companies to pitch to a varied group of investors, from qualified angels to major pharmas. We also represent companies seeking financing and independent investors in this space. In assisting in due diligence during the first eight months of 2021, certain matters have been emphasized in diligence review.
Continue reading “Trends in Early-Stage Boston Med-Tech Investment”
On July 1, 2021, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland published a memorandum that rescinds two previous memoranda―the Sessions Memorandum and Brand Memorandum―that prohibited Department of Justice attorneys from using noncompliance with federal agency guidance documents as a basis for civil and criminal enforcement cases. Garland’s memorandum states these previous policies were “overly restrictive,” “discouraged the development of valuable guidance” and hindered DOJ’s litigation of cases when relevant agency guidance was available.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.
In a recent 2-1 decision after a rehearing, GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit confirmed that substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings of induced infringement throughout the term of GSK’s patent, including the “partial label period” when Teva used a skinny label to carve out a patented method.
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.
On July 7, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final guidance regarding the form and content of unique device identifier (UDI) labeling. The guidance will assist labelers of medical devices and FDA-accredited issuing agencies (who operate systems for issuing UDIs used by labelers) in meeting the requirements under 21 CFR Part 801, Subpart B, and the Unique Device Identification System Final Rule, 78 FR 58786 (September 24, 2013) (UDI Rule).
To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.
Duane Morris’ Life Sciences and Medical Technologies Industry Group has been ranked in The Legal 500 US 2021 guide.
An excerpt from the publication:
Duane Morris LLP is recommended for its expertise in M&A, patents, and commercial licensing and collaboration agreements, acting for domestic companies in addition to a strong roster of clients in the Asia-Pacific region.
Testimonials
For more information, please visit the firm website.
What liability does a parent company have when a subsidiary’s actions allegedly constitute patent infringement?
That is the question answered in a recent patent infringement case, Akoloutheo, L.L.C. v. System Soft Technologies, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-985, 2021 WL 1947343 (E.D. Tx. May 14, 2021). In particular, Akoloutheo sheds light on the application of Rule 12(b)(7) in a situation where a subsidiary of the defendant parent company is the primary participant in the acts giving rise to the infringement action and could not be joined to the present infringement action. Based on the court’s determination, parent companies should not expect to escape infringement liability by pinning the blame on a subsidiary and seeking a dismissal via a 12(b)(7) motion when the subsidiary cannot be joined due to it being viewed as a joint tortfeasor and thus does not need to be joined to the present action under Rule 19. Further, the infringement statute may impute infringement liability on the parent through an inducement or contributory theory. Thus, despite the protection offered through the creation of separate corporate entities, parties should be aware that infringement liability may extend to both the parent and subsidiary under the theories of induced infringement or contributory infringement, even if the subsidiary is the primary participant in the alleged infringing acts.
