We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
  • SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Drug Products
    • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Events
    • Form 483s Database
    • Subscription Newsletters
    • Free Newsletters
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • Device Products
    • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Events
    • Form 483s Database
    • Subscription Newsletters
    • Free Newsletters
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • Clinical Products
  • Advertising
  • White Papers
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • COVID-19
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » APPEALS COURT AFFIRMS RULING DENYING APOTEX'S REQUEST TO BLOCK PRAVACHOL

APPEALS COURT AFFIRMS RULING DENYING APOTEX'S REQUEST TO BLOCK PRAVACHOL

June 7, 2006

A federal appeals court ruling in a case pitting drugmakers Apotex and Teva Pharmaceutical against one another could make it harder for generic firms to file lawsuits intended to trigger -- or avoid triggering -- marketing exclusivity periods.

The ruling issued by U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision to deny Apotex's request for a preliminary injunction blocking Teva Pharmaceutical's launch of a version of Bristol-Myers' Squibb's cholesterol drug Pravachol. Annual brand product sales of Pravachol (pravastatin sodium) in 10-, 20- and 40-mg strengths were approximately $1.5 billion in 2005, according to Teva.

Apotex had sought the injunction in April after the FDA reversed its decision upholding the drugmaker's assertion that a lawsuit between it and BMS has triggered Teva's exclusivity period to market Pravachol. In the Apotex-BMS dispute, the court dismissed the case, which Apotex said qualified as a court order that triggered Teva's exclusivity. In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sent the issue back to the FDA to explain its reasoning in its decision that the exclusivity period had been triggered. In its revised decision, the FDA said the ruling in fact could not trigger exclusivity because the court did not address whether the patent was invalid, not infringed or unenforceable.

A key element of the ruling was the court's acceptance of the FDA's determination that only a court decision showing that a determination that a patent was invalid, not infringed upon or unenforceable had been made by the court would trigger a generic drugmaker's marketing exclusivity period.

The FDA had argued in its determination that forcing the agency to look beyond the face of a court order -- in other words, to examine an order that doesn't explicitly state invalidity, noninfringement or unenforceability -- would require it to make judgments about patent law that it is not qualified to make. Encouraging "highly-interested and well-financed litigants to pursue ever-finer distinctions, ever farther removed from the language of the statute and from its purposes offers no guarantee of more rapid generic drug approvals, only a high likelihood of delay due to litigation," the agency argued.

The FDA also argued that uncertainty about the type of court decision that triggers marketing exclusivity could undermine marketplace planning and interfere with business planning and investment.

"In our view, these perfectly reasonable propositions adequately support FDA's position," the appeals court said. (http://www.fdanews.com/did/5_111/)

KEYWORDS FDAnews Drug Daily Bulletin

Upcoming Events

  • 26Jan

    Reducing Complexity in Starting Clinical Trials – More Patients, Faster Startup

  • 27Jan

    Medical Device Clinical Trials in China: Latest Regulatory Developments

  • 27Jan

    FDA’s Response to COVID-19: Fundamentals of Obtaining Emergency Use Authorizations

  • 09Feb

    Maintaining Your Risk-Based Cleaning and Disinfectant Programs: Best Practices During COVID-19

  • 10Feb

    FDA Under the Biden Administration: What’s to Come and What It Will Mean

  • 11Feb

    Lab X.0: Addressing Quality and Compliance Challenges in Laboratory Operations in the COVID-19 All-Digital Era

Featured Products

  • Biological Risk Evaluation and Management for Medical Devices

  • GMP Inspection Preparation Checklist: A Tool for Internal Auditing

Featured Stories

  • Supreme Court Rejects Merck’s Appeal for $2.5 Billion Patent Verdict Reinstatement

  • FDA clears text

    FDA Clears SCC’s Transfusion-Management Software

  • CE mark

    MiRXES Earns CE Mark for COVID-19/Flu Test

  • KitePharma_Logo

    Kite Pharma’s Tecartus Gains UK Recommendation for Lymphoma

The Revised ICH E8: A Guide to New Clinical Trial Requirements

Learn More
  • Drug Products
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • GMPs
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • Research and Development
    • Commercial Operations
  • Device Products
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • QSR
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • Research and Development
    • Commercial Operations
  • Clinical Products
    • Trial Design
    • Data Integrity
    • GCP
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Transparency
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 703.538.7600 – Fax 703.538.7676 – Toll free 888.838.5578

Copyright © 2021. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing