In 1984, the “Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act,” more commonly known as the “Hatch-Waxman Act” after its sponsors, established the modern regime for resolving pharmaceutical patent infringement disputes between generic and branded drug manufacturers in situations in which a generic maker seeks Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market a drug that is bioequivalent to an approved branded drug. The Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(2), establishes that submission of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) by a generic pharmaceutical maker to the FDA constitutes patent infringement (even though such an application technically is not a use of the patented invention). Upon such a filing, the brand manufacturer can then commence a patent infringement suit, commonly known as ANDA litigation.
One issue that the branded manufacturer must consider in these circumstances is the venue in which to bring suit. The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision earlier this month in Celgene v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, No. 20-1154 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2021) provided further guidance regarding what constitutes an act of infringement for venue purposes in the ANDA context.
Background: The Hatch-Waxman Act
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]