The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published its final Guidance for Industry detailing circumstances that would constitute interference with a drug inspection under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), signed into law on July 9, 2012.
Prior to the passage of the FDASIA, sections 301(e) and 301(f) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) prohibited drug facilities from denying FDA: (1) entry or the opportunity for inspection or; (2) refusing access to or the opportunity to copy specific records. Section 707 of the FDASIA extends this prohibition, through section 501(j) of the FD&C Act, by deeming a drug adulterated if ” … it has been manufactured, processed, packed, or held in any factory, warehouse, or establishment and the owner, operator, or agent of such factory, warehouse, or establishment delays, denies, or limits an inspection, or refuses to permit entry or inspection.” This provision extends to “any factory, warehouse, or establishment in which … drugs … are manufactured, processed, packed, or held, for introduction into interstate commerce or after such introduction, or to enter any vehicle being used to transport or hold such … drugs … in interstate commerce.” FDASIA also adds section 704(a)(4) to the FD&C Act, allowing FDA to “request, in advance of or in lieu of an inspection, within a reasonable timeframe, within reasonable limits, and in a reasonable manner, records or information that FDA may inspect under section 704(a).”
To read the full text of this Alert, please visit the Duane Morris website.
On November 21, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the release of three new guidance documents related to drug compounding outsourcing facilities. These documents include:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a report titled “Standardizing and Evaluating Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS),” which summarizes stakeholder engagements completed in fiscal year 2013 and fulfills FDA’s Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) commitment to issue a report of its findings regarding REMS standardization.
The Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) were signed into law on July 9, 2012, in an effort “to speed access to safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry.” In July 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued two draft Guidances for Industry: one relating to Prior Approval Supplements Under GDUFA and one relating to Amendments and Easily Correctable Deficiencies Under GDUFA.
Click here to read the full Alert written by Duane Morris partner Rick Ball and associate Carolyn Alenci.
In July 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released five documents containing policies and proposals that affect both traditional compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities that compound drugs for human use. These FDA guidance documents and proposed rule are the latest FDA action to implement its new authority under the CQA to regulate the compounding of drugs for human use. FDA’s current thinking, its proposed regulation and Final Guidance are key guideposts for entities compounding for human use under either Section 503A, Section 503B, or both.
Click here to read the full Alert.
As discussed in our April 11, 2014 Alert, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) was enacted “to build an electronic, interoperable system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed within the United States.” Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft Guidance for Industry for implementing the DSCSA with respect to identification of suspect products and notification thereof.
Starting January 1, 2015, trading partners and manufacturers are required to “notify FDA and immediate trading partners (that they have reason to believe may have received [or possess] the illegitimate product) not later than 24 hours after making the determination.”
Click here to read the full Alert, written by Duane Morris partner Rick Ball and associate Carolyn Alenci.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a new Guidance for Industry, titled ANDAs: Stability Testing of Drug Substances and Products, Questions and Answers, which provides answers to questions from public comments received on the draft Guidance for Industry on ANDAs: Stability Testing of Drug Substances and Products (“FDA stability guidance”) that was published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2012. It also incorporates comments received on the same draft, which were previously published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2013.
Click here to read this Alert, written by Duane Morris Partner Rick Ball and associate Emily Winfield.
By Vicki G. Norton, Siegfried J.W. Ruppert, and Michael Swit
In a trio of March 6, 2014 inter partes review (IPR) decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) canceled patent claims related to next generation DNA sequencing technology, after Illumina, Inc. countered Columbia University’s patent infringement suit by successfully petitioning for IPR of claims in three of five of Columbia’s patents-in-suit.
The decisions illustrate the utility of the new IPR process before the PTAB, implemented under the America Invents Act (AIA), as a parallel venue in which patent litigation defendants can challenge the patentability of claims asserted against them in litigation, more expeditiously and less costly than in court proceedings.
Continue reading “Successful Use of Inter Partes Review to Cancel Claims Asserted in Parallel Litigation”
By Vicki G. Norton and Michael A. Swit
FDA-regulated firms — drug, device, biologic or otherwise — on both sides of the patent aisle concerned with the bounds of the “Safe Harbor” exception to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) can learn several key lessons from the recent decision in Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v Santaris Pharma A/S Corp. (hereafter: “Isis”), particularly how to properly prove the safe harbor defense once the litigation unfolds and also when the harbor provides shelter from post-approval patent storms.
Continue reading “Court Offers Insights On When the 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor Applies to the Use of Patented Technology in Early – and Late — Drug Development”