FDA Lawyers Blog

On July 11, FLH Partner Brian J. Malkin will speak at Q1 Productions' Global Clinical Risk Management & Regulatory Policy Conference in Alexandria, VA on the topic "Developing a Single, Shared REMS in a Collaborative Setting". Joining Mr. Malkin will be Mark A. Collings, Ph.D., M.B.A., Director, REMS Programs, Pharmacovigilance and Risk Management, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The session description reads:

The FDA approves single, shared REMS for product categories with similar risk management programs to help relieve some of the burden on healthcare providers and pharmacies. The development of shared REMS requires that multiple companies and the FDA work in tandem to unify data and risk minimization systems, a model which some companies have also used to help organize risk management plans internationally. By ensuring a strong cross-corporate collaboration, internal regulatory policies, data analysis and communication systems can be synchronized internationally for advanced risk management programs.

• Structuring lines of communication within shared REMS network

• Establishing similar regulatory policies

• Utilizing data from all companies for international RMP development.

The Conference will be held on July 11-12, 2013. Throughout this two-day program, executive from industry will have an opportunity to discuss and debate the many challenges associated with profiling the risk of products as well as minimizing these risks and meeting regulatory expectations. As with all Q1 programs, the focus of the event will not only lie upon the educational content, but also providing attendees with an opportunity to network and build relationships across this highly dynamic and evolving market.

On May 10, FDA denied a Citizen Petition submitted on behalf of Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Endo"). The Petition requested that FDA: (1) determine that Opana® ER (oxymorphone hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets ("OP") were discontinued for safety reasons, (2) refuse to approve any pending abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA") for a generic version of OP, and (3) suspend and withdraw the approval of any ANDA referencing OP as the reference listed drug. By statute, if a drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness, FDA must refuse to approve any pending ANDA and suspend or withdraw any approved ANDA referencing the drug.

FDA initially approved the New Drug Application ("NDA") for OP held by Endo on June 22, 2006. The approved label advised that the product should be swallowed whole and warned against crushing, chewing, snorting, or injecting the dissolved product to prevent uncontrolled delivery, overdose, and death. FDA approved two ANDAs referencing OP in December 2010. Generic versions of the product entered the market in July 2011 and January 2013, respectively.

Written by Shelly Fujikawa. Ph.D

Other Posts By This Author

Written by Brian J. Malkin

Other Posts By This Author

FDA approved an NDA for a reformulated version of OP, also called Opana® ER (oxymorphone hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets ("OPR"), held by Endo on December 9, 2011. FDA found that OPR could still "dose dump" and approved a label for ORP that was virtually identical to the approved label for OP. Endo ceased shipping OP on May 31, 2012 and submitted the present petition in August 2012 which was subsequently supplemented with preliminary postmarketing data and analysis concerning the abuse of OP, generic versions of OP, and OPR.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") announced last Tuesday that it would not approve any generic versions of the original formulation of the prescription narcotic painkiller OxyContin® ("original Oxycontin®"). OxyContin® is a brand name for oxycodone hydrochloride, an opiate-based pain medication. Original Oxycontin® has been marketed by Purdue Pharma since 1995 and is notorious for its user misuse and abuse.

OxyContin® contains a large amount of oxycodone because it is designed to release the pain-relieving drug over an extended 12-hour period. However, original Oxycontin® can easily be crushed and then snorted or injected (or even sprinkled on food) to produce a rapid and intense euphoric high. The abuse of original OxyContin® in this manner can lead to addiction and dependence and has reportedly earned the product the nickname "hillbilly heroin." Its accessibility has magnified abuse rates; FDA reports that half a million people over age twelve began using original OxyContin® for non-medicinal purposes in 2008 alone. According to the Center for Disease Control, the death toll from prescription painkiller overdoses tripled in the first decade of the 21st century, and such overdoses "now kill more Americans than heroin and cocaine combined."

Written by Rachael P. McClure

Other Posts By This Author

In addition to a patent for original OxyContin, which expired on Tuesday, Purdue Pharma also owns a patent for a reformulated, abuse-deterring version ("reformulated Oxycontin®"). This newer version was designed to resist being crushed and to form a gel that is difficult to inject when dissolved. Notably, FDA approved an updated label for this product last week, specifying the tablets' crush-resistant properties and warning of the fatal risks of misuse. (The label information is available here.) Purdue withdrew original OxyContin® from the market when its new version was approved in 2010 but retained the trade name.

Over the past months, there has been a lot of speculation (see recent blogs here , here, and here) whether the White House's proposed budget would cause a sequester situation for FDA, resulting in potential layoffs or program cuts, in an era of new user fees for generic drugs and biosimilar biological products. While initial reports and temporary budget fixes (called continuing resolutions) appeared to keep FDA's user fees intact and available for use, FDA's Commissioner, Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., recently reported to members of a biotechnology trade association, the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council ("MassBio"), that it was not clear what would happen with user fees in the new federal budget.

Released on April 10, the White House's proposed fiscal year 2014 budget is a mixed bag that has been called a "political document rather than a serious piece of legislation" with a "series of bargaining positions" that "would bleed pharma." On the one hand, the plan would appear to confirm that FDA's user fees would not be sequestered, given that it supported the $4.7 billion in total program budget requested by FDA, which included user fees that would help fund over 90 percent of the requested increases. On the other hand, the budget includes a myriad of proposals that would change the way the government pays for medical care and products. For example, Medicare (senior citizens' drug coverage) Part D manufacturer discounts for branded drugs would be increased from 50% to 75% in 2015 (rather than 2020) and low-income individuals would be pushed more to generic drugs by increasing certain copayments for branded drugs and lowering certain copayments for generic drugs.

Written by Brian J. Malkin

Other Posts By This Author

Many of the more controversial proposals were nestled in a document called "Reducing the Deficit in a Smart and Balanced Way". Here, the White House proposes, among other things, several items to purportedly lower drug costs, including: 1) authorizing the Federal Trade Commission to stop companies from entering into certain "pay-for-delay" agreements (see below) and 2) beginning in 2014, to reduce biologic product exclusivity from 12 years to 7 years and prohibit additional periods of exclusivity for minor changes to product formulations. These two items could open up some unanticipated debate regarding the White House's budget.

On March 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Federal Trade Commission's ("FTC's") case challenging the Hatch-Waxman patent settlements Solvay (now owned by Abbot Laboratories) entered into with Watson Pharmaceuticals, Par Pharmaceutical, and Paddock Laboratories resolving their disputes involving Solvay's testosterone-replacement drug AndroGel®. The so-called reverse-payment settlements at issue in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., Sup. Ct. No. 12-416 ("AndroGel") involved the generic manufacturers' agreements to abandon their patent challenges and delay generic entry for nine years. The settlements also involved Solvay making certain payments to the generic manufacturers in return for backup manufacturing and marketing support. For additional background information, please see some of our more recent blogs here, here, and here.

The issue before the Court is whether reverse-payment settlements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud (as the Eleventh and other circuits have held), or instead are presumptively anticompetitive and unlawful (as the Third Circuit held in K-Dur).

Written by Justine K. Donahue

Other Posts By This Author

Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart argued on behalf of the FTC that the Court should adopt a "quick look" rule of reason analysis under the antitrust laws whereby reverse-payment settlements will be presumptively anticompetitive unless defendants can show that the payment from the brand to the generic was for a purpose other than delaying generic entry, or the payment offered some pro-competitive benefit. Notably, this quick look approach was adopted by the Third Circuit in K-Dur. Counsel for the respondent drug companies argued that the Court should adopt the "scope of the patent defense" applied by the Second, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits finding these agreements to be lawful absent sham litigation or fraud in obtaining the patent.

In a surprising turn of events, last week FDA's new Office of Generic Drugs ("OGD") Director Gregory P. Geba, M.D., M.P.H., voluntarily stepped down from his post after only about eight months after being announced as the new Director. Rather than hiring from within, FDA hired Geba from Sanofi US, where he had previously most recently served as Deputy Chief Medical Officer. FDA said then, "He [Geba] joins OGD at an opportune time to lead our expanding generic program into a reorganization of both structure and process to improve coordination, communication, and efficiency, as well as enhance the Office's ability to ensure that all generic drugs--which make up nearly 80 percent of prescriptions filled in the United States--are safe, effective, of high quality, and interchangeable with the brand name drug product/reference listed drug." Around this same time, FDA moved OGD to the same organizational level as the Office of New Drugs ("OND"), called a "Super office," signaling that the two offices now had the same reporting structure directly to the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research ("CDER"), Janet Woodcock, M.D., rather than a sub-office, as had previously been the case.

According to reports of an e-mail that Geba sent to FDA staff on March 13, Geba cited the movement of OGD's chemistry divisions into a new Office of Pharmaceutical Quality as one of the lead reasons for his resignation, as well as the relocation of his family to the Washington area. Geba reportedly wrote: "As I see it, two of the original reasons I came to [OGD] . . . would be challenged by resources needed for application to other extremely important efforts of the chemistry group in moving to [the Office of Pharmaceutical Quality." The e-mail explained that while Geba generally supported the transfer of the chemistry group to the Office of Pharmaceutical Quality. Geba thought, however, that the move could make it difficult for him to achieve his goals to approve generic versions of inhalers, topical creams, and other complex drugs, as well as addressing the importance of pill size, shape, color, and other characteristics to patients.

Written by Brian J. Malkin

Other Posts By This Author

Geba helped FDA with its initial phases for implementing the Generic Drug User Fee Act ("GDUFA"). According to Geba, since GDUFA, OGD decreased the abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA") backlog by nearly 600 applications and approved nearly 200 ANDAs since October 2012.

The Supreme Court has another chance to clarify the scope of the safe-harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. petitioned the Supreme Court to review Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. In that case, the Federal Circuit held that 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) protected post-approval studies performed for FDA. Momenta's request comes roughly one month after the Supreme Court declined to grant cert in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, another Federal Circuit case involving the scope of 271(e)(1) (blogged on here).

Momenta identifies the issue for the Supreme Court as:

Whether the use of a patented invention in the course of post-approval manufacture of a drug for commercial sale, where the FDA requires that a record of that manufacturing activity be maintained, is exempt from liability for patent infringement under Section 271(e)(1) as "solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulations the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs.

Written by Scot B. Pittman

Other Posts By This Author

The generic-drug company seeks Supreme Court intervention to remedy what it views as inconsistent and incorrect Federal Circuit law. The safe harbor states that it is not an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under [federal drug laws]. 21 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). In Classen, a divided Federal Circuit panel interpreted the provision to be limited to "activities conducted to obtain pre-marketing approval of generic counterparts of patented inventions, before patent expiration." Roughly one year later, another divided Federal Circuit panel, in Momenta, held that "the requirement to maintain records for FDA inspection satisfies the requirement that the uses be reasonably related to the development and submission of information to FDA.

Written by Brian J. Malkin

Other Posts By This Author

The last day of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association ("GPhA") 2013 Annual Meeting also featured an FDA Keynote Address by FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. For a summary of public sessions from Day Two, please see the previous blog here; a summary of the CEOs Unplugged session may be found here.

Video streaming by Ustream

Following the CEOs Unplugged session on day three, Hamburg delivered her Keynote Address. Hamburg said that GPhA was one of the few organizations that she has chosen to address each year since becoming Commissioner, "because of the dynamic character of this group, your prominent role in the nation's health care system and the importance of the work you do." Celebrating GDUFA and the FDA Safety and Innovation Act ("FDASIA"), Hamburg emphasized that FDA is making "quality one of the highest priorities this year," hoping that GPhA's members do the same. Despite generic drug companies providing 85 percent of all prescriptions filled, some studies have suggested that many physicians still have "negative perceptions about the quality of generic medicines," which Hamburg said was "troublesome - and assuredly not fair."

Hamburg reported "impressive strides in implementing GDUFA," explaining that FDA got the word out of new requirements and fees early, resulting in the collection of almost $125 million in fiscal year 2013 user fees to help brining in staff and other resources to help reduce the backlog of ANDAs above 2,500 applications with median review times at about 31 months. FDA has assembled a list of about 2,000 facilities supplying generic drugs to the U.S. following self-identification procedures.

Written by Brian J. Malkin

Other Posts By This Author

The last day of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association ("GPhA") 2013 Annual Meeting featured a program known as "CEOs Unplugged" and an FDA Keynote Address by FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. For a summary of public sessions from Day Two, see the previous blog here. This blog focuses on the CEOs Unplugged session. A subsequent blog will cover FDA's Keynote Address.

The CEOs selected for this year's program included Donald DeGolyer, President, Sandoz, Inc., Tony Mauro, President, Mylan, North America, Thomas Moore, President, Hospira USA, Allan Oberman, President and CEO, Teva Americas Generics, and Siggi Olafsson, President, Actavis Pharma.

Perhaps Oberman summed up the overall themes best when he acknowledged that the lines between innovator and generics are beginning to blur, where generic medicines are becoming more complex, and generic manufacturers are increasingly seeking a niche to compete in. The CEOs noted that none of the same CEOs were on the stage five years ago, which signals just how much the key players and CEOs have been changing. Other comments Oberman made included: (1) he hoped the Generic Drug User Fee Act ("GDUFA") approval and efficacy measures would be used effectively and manufacturing sites outside the U.S. would be under similar scrutiny as in the U.S., (2) no one is really planning for shortages, but it is important to have effective communication to prevent them in particular with FDA, (3) industry needs to stop "fear mongering" to figure out when biosimilars will be approved or interchangeable--some people will take biosimilars and others will not, just as with generic drugs, (4) more mergers in the generic pharmaceutical industry should be expected, especially in emerging markets, (5) generic pharmaceuticals should be more available in the eastern part of the world where access to medicine may still be restricted, which provides more growth opportunities, and (6) traditional generic manufacturers should consider either developing new molecular entities or combining older generics in ways to improve convenience, safety, or effectiveness.

Written by Brian J. Malkin

Other Posts By This Author

On February 20-22, 2013, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association ("GPhA") held its 2013 Annual Meeting attracting over 600 attendees to see how the nation's health and regulatory issues will impact the generic industry and consumers who use generic medicines. While some events are for GPhA members only, a majority of the events are open to all attendees and were held in a single room or exhibit hall. Most of the main events were held in a slickly-decorated room filled with stars, comets, and planets.

While the Meeting covered a lot of territory, recurrent themes appeared to emphasize that the generic industry has come of age, where it joins its big-pharma brothers in having an office on par level with the Office of New Drugs ("OND") in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research ("CDER") and now pays user fees to speed up generic drug approvals. GPhA's members announced that they are ready to develop high quality generic versions of specialty pharmaceuticals and biologics, some of which may require the expenditure of hundreds or more millions of dollars to develop, obtain approval for, and market. At the same time, GPhA appears to hold onto the notions that that they can continue to settle cases with reverse payments that the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") views as so-called "pay-for-delay" settlements that are presumptively anticompetitive. GPhA also believes that manufacturers should be allowed to sell generic versions of products with the same labeling as the innovator, when the innovator or generic companies that manufacture and sell the product are aware of safety information not presently included in the FDA-approved labeling.

Kicking off the meeting with a "State of the Association", GPhA President and CEO Ralph G. Neas described generic drugs as the "backbone of the pharmaceutical industry." Neas expressed the Association's confidence that FDA will "come through" and help the industry understand what will be expected of it to develop biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, which are the future to save lives and money.

On February 11, the American Medical Association ("AMA") voiced its opinions regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming review of pharmaceutical patent litigation settlements that include payments to patent challengers, commonly referred to as "pay for delay" settlements.

As explained here, pay-for-delay settlements occur in the context of pharmaceutical litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act. In a nutshell, they involve payments from a patent holder to a generic manufacturer (who has filed an abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA") relying on the patent holder's brand-name drug product and been sued) in return for an agreement to refrain from selling the generic product for a period of time. These settlement deals have become targets of the antitrust enforcement agencies and, as widely predicted, the High Court has agreed to resolve a circuit split over their presumptive legality.

Written by Rachael P. McClure

Other Posts By This Author

The question presented, from the 11th Circuit case FTC v. Actavis (Docket No. 12-416), is "whether reverse-payment agreements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud (as the court below held), or instead are presumptively anticompetitive and unlawful (as the Third Circuit has held)." The Eleventh Circuit determined that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's ("FTC's") assertion that a patent holder was "not likely to prevail" in the underlying infringement action against generic manufacturers did not assert a valid antitrust claim because focus is "on the potential exclusionary effect of the patent, not the likely exclusionary effect," and a settlement that imposes restraints lesser than that full potential effect do not exceed the "scope of the patent." The Third Circuit, conversely, applied a "quick look rule of reason," finding that "any payment from a patent holder to a generic patent challenger who agrees to delay entry into the market [is] prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade," rebuttable by a "showing that the payment (1) was for a purpose other than delayed entry or (2) offers some pro-competitive benefit."

On January 24 to a packed house, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law Section of the New York State Bar held its annual meeting. This year, the agenda featured presentations on medical devices, a Supreme Court update, an in-house/outside counsel panel to discuss effective relations for FDA/regulatory advice, a discussion of the Federal Sunshine Act, and "A View from the Inside" retrospective of some hot issues at FDA from a recent high-level official at FDA, including the new food and pharmacy initiatives under development.

In the Supreme Court update called "Pivotal Court Cases for FDA Practitioners 2012-2013 Updates", FLH Partner Brian J. Malkin, spoke on two cases to watch in the first quarter of 2013, Mutual Pharm. Co., Inc. v. Bartlett , No. 12-142 (U.S., cert. granted Nov. 30, 2012, argument scheduled Mar. 19, 2013) and Bowman v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-796 (U.S., cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012, argument scheduled Feb. 19, 2013). The question presented in Mutual v. Bartlett is:

Whether the First Circuit erred when it created a circuit split and held--in clear conflict with this Court's decisions in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011); Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008); and Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)--that federal law does not preempt state law design-defect claims targeting generic pharmaceutical products because the conceded conflict between such claims and the federal laws governing generic pharmaceutical design allegedly can be avoided if the makers of generic pharmaceuticals simply stop making their products.

Written by Brian J. Malkin

Other Posts By This Author

Bowman v. Monsanto is a case that my firm, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, is arguing on behalf of petitioner Bowman, where the question presented is:

Patent exhaustion delimits rights of patent holders by eliminating the right to control or prohibit use of the invention after an authorized sale. In this case, the Federal Circuit refused to find exhaustion where a farmer used seeds purchased in an authorized sale for their natural and foreseeable purpose--namely, for planting. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion in patented seeds even after an authorized sale and by (2) creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies?

Mr. Malkin's summaries of these two cases may be found here. His presentation for these two cases, including topics for consideration by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Section may be found here.

Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP Partner Brian J. Malkin will speak on two topics at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the New York State Bar Association, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law Section in New York City on January 24, 2013 : 1) Pivotal Cases for FDA Practitioners: 2012-2013 Updates and 2) In-House/Outside Counsel Panel: Effective Communication Regarding FDA/Regulatory Advice. For the Pivotal Cases, Mr. Malkin will be joined by Janet Linn from Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, and Mr. Malkin's In-House/Outside Counsel Panel includes Geoffrey Levitt, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel, Worldwide Regulatory and Policy Law, Pfizer, Inc.; Michael DiBello, Vice President and Associate General Counsel - Regulatory, Aceto Corp.; and Afia Konadu Asamoah, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP. Mr. Malkin hopes the In-House / Outside Counsel panel will be of interest for advancing effective interactions between FDA regulatory affairs professionals.

<On January 17, FDA published in the Federal Register the finished dosage form ("FDF") and active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API") facility fees for fiscal year 2013 ("FY2013") (October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013). FDA's most recent publication rounds out the list of new user fees associated with generic drugs filed as abbreviated new drug applications ("ANDAs"), which were authorized by the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 ("GDUFA") an enacted by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012.

GDUFA authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees for ANDAs and certain supplements associated with human generic drug products, ANDAs in the backlog as of October 1, 2012, finished dosage form ("FDF") and active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API") facilities, and on Type II drug master files ("DMF") to be made available to reference. FDA has been staggering its publication of these rates for FY2013 with the FDF and API facility fees as being the latest in the series.

Written by Brian J. Malkin

Other Posts By This Author

To summarize these fees for FY2013:

(1) ANDA and Prior Approval Supplement ("PAS") fees were published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2012 as $51,520 for an ANDA and $25,760 for a PAS. If an ANDA is refused to file and the refusal is not related to a failure to pay fees, the applicant will receive 75% of this fee amount. If an ANDA fails to pay fees within 20 calendar days of submission, the application is deemed incomplete and will be "received" only after payment in full is received. User fees are required for all PASs, including labeling and microbiology that require prior approval under FDA regulations.

On January 16, 2013, FLH Partner Brian J. Malkin was quoted in FDAnews article: "Alabama Supreme Court: Brand Drugmakers Can Be Held Liable for Generic-Drug Labeling". The Alabama Supreme Court recently held that Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer") could be sued for injury caused by a generic version of its drug. FDAnews asked Mr. Malkin how this could affect branded drug manufacturers makers and whether this decision would contradict federal laws and court rulings. Below is an excerpt from that story:

The Alabama court decision raises the question of whether states or the federal government should have had jurisdiction over the matter, Brian Malkin, a Partner at Frommer Lawrence & Haug told DID.

Written by Brian J. Malkin

Other Posts By This Author

"If it is fraud, it is fraud on a national level so you would think the case should have gone to the FDA," Malkin said. He has noticed a tension between state-specific and FDA authority in this arena and has noted a couple of cases where states seem to be taking on areas that are traditionally in the FDA's realm. The Mutual v. Bartlett generic preemption case set to be heard by the Supreme Court this spring also began at the state court level, Malkin said (DID, Dec. 3, 2012).