Hatch-Waxman Act

Subscribe to Hatch-Waxman Act via RSS

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889, a case that could reshape the landscape of pharmaceutical patent enforcement and generic drug competition. The case concerns the scope of induced infringement liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in the context of “skinny labels” — the mechanism by which generic drug manufacturers may carve out patented indications from their FDA-approved labeling and enter the market for unpatented uses under Section viii of the Hatch-Waxman Act. A decision is expected by the end of the Supreme Court’s current term in June 2026. As we discussed in our earlier blog post on The Patent Playbook, this case squarely implicates the enforceability of method-of-use patents for later-developed drug indications, and the viability of the Section viii pathway for generic drug manufacturers.

The Supreme Court’s decision to review Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma Inc. places renewed attention on a familiar but unsettled issue in pharmaceutical patent law: how the induced infringement doctrine applies when a generic drug launches with a concededly “skinny” label, but engages in broader marketing and communications outside the FDA-approved label.

Although the case arises under the Hatch-Waxman Act, it squarely implicates the scope and enforceability of method-of-use patents, particularly for later-developed indications that often represent substantial additional investment by brand-name manufacturers.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., has garnered significant attention, especially concerning the application of the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). The Federal Circuit’s ruling, and the subsequent denial of Edwards’s petition for rehearing en banc, underscores…

Allele v. Pfizer – The Basics. On April 23, 2021, Pfizer, Inc., BioNTechSE, and BioNTech US, Inc. (“Pfizer and BioNTech”) filed a joint reply supporting of their previously filed motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint filed by Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Allele”) in the Southern District of California. The patent at the center of the case is U.S. Pat. No. 10,221,221 (“the ’221 Patent”) which covers Allele’s mNeonGreen, a monomeric yellow-green fluorescent protein notable for its intense brightness. On May 4, 2021, the court denied the motion to dismiss, leaning heavily of the Federal Circuit’s 2008 decision Proveris Science Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc. As this case continues to develop it could help shed light on an unsettled issue – are “research tools” categorically excluded from the 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor?