Companies face many hurdles when bringing a new product to market, including technical problems, regulatory requirements and changing market forces. Introducing a new drug or medical device to the market introduces additional regulatory hurdles before both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The strategies for meeting these regulatory requirements may often seem contradictory, and can be a trap for the unwary. This ultimately doomed the Belcher Pharmaceutical patent as will be explained in detail below.
When filing a patent application with the USPTO, an invention must be novel and non-obvious over “prior art,” which includes prior patent applications and public documents and prior uses of the technology. As part of the review process, an applicant also has the duty to disclose all relevant art or background information that they are aware of that may be relevant, or material, to the patentability of the invention. This is also known as an information disclosure statement (IDS).
The FDA has a separate set of requirements for inventors planning on pursuing expedited approval of their inventions by the FDA. This is known as the 510(k) route and requires inventors to demonstrate their new devices are “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device. The FDA considers a device “substantially equivalent” if it has the same intended use and the same technological characteristics as a legally marketed device.
At times, the requirements of the USPTO and the 510(k) requirements of the FDA can appear to be contradictory and may pose a challenge to inventors. On one hand, the inventor needs to demonstrate to the FDA that the device has the same technological characteristics as a predicate device that has been commercially available prior to the 510(k) in order to be eligible for expedited approval. On the other hand, the patent applicant needs to demonstrate that the device is novel and non-obvious in light of the available prior art. Accordingly, applicants seeking an expedited 510(k) approval need to ensure that the information they are disclosing to the FDA and USPTO is accurate, but also satisfies the requirements of each agency.
In the recent case of Belcher Pharmaceuticals v. Hospira, the Federal Circuit held Belcher’s patent (‘197 Patent) unenforceable for inequitable conduct after they presented conflicting information to the USPTO and FDA in an attempt to obtain 510(k) approval process for its patent. The ‘197 patent covered an epinephrine formulation with a pH range of 2.8 to 3.3 with a certain impurity level limitation. In the new drug application submitted to the FDA, Belcher named as a reference product Sintetica’s epinephrine formulation with a pH range of 3.1 to 3.3, a range that overlapped with the range specified in its patent. Belcher explained to the FDA that the pH range of 2.8 to 3.3 was “old” and that it was necessary to reduce the range to a pH of 2.4 to 2.6 to reduce racemization. However, Belcher was advised that seeking FDA approval for a pH range of 2.4 to 2.6 would delay approval so they reverted back to the pH range of 2.8 to 3.3 shown in the Sintetica product.
Belcher also filed a patent application for its epinephrine product. The prosecution of the ‘197 patent involved only a single office action after the examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on a Canadian Patent Application (“Helenek”) that disclosed an epinephrine product with a pH range of 2.2 to 5.5. However, Belcher successfully argued that the Helenek patent failed to render obvious the claimed range of 2.8 to 3.3 because “the claimed range was unexpectedly found to be critical … to reduce the racemization of epinephrine.” Not only did Belcher fail to disclose the Sintetica product to the USPTO, but this statement directly contradicts the statement to the FDA that 2.8 to 3.3 is the “old” range and needed to be lowered. Once this information came to light in the patent infringement case initiated by Belcher, the court found the ‘197 patent to be unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
While District Courts have ruled that 510(k) equivalency statements made to the FDA to compare a new device to a predicate device are potentially relevant, an equivalency statement is not sufficient to establish infringement. Instead, the courts will often exclude the 510(k) evidence in a patent infringement case so as to not confuse the jury because the term “equivalent” has a different meaning before the USPTO and FDA.
Given the costly consequences that can result from missteps, it is critical for patent applicants seeking an expedited 510(k) approval from the FDA to ensure that they carefully strike a balance regarding the disclosure requirements to ensure they satisfy the requirements of both the FDA and USPTO while avoiding the fate of Belcher’s ‘197 patent.
Jay Halt is co-author of FDA and Intellectual Property Strategies for Medical Device Technologies which provides comprehensive, easy to understand guidance for medical device technology innovators on how to work through the U.S. FDA regulatory review process while also providing insight on intellectual property concerns.
- Shareholder
Clients appreciate Jay’s holistic and inventive approach to optimizing the value of their intellectual property portfolios. He collaborates with clients at all stages of development—from startup entrepreneurs to teams of ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Artificial Ingenuity: Is Generative AI the New 'Person of Ordinary Skill' in Patent Law?
- The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)
- Patently Unclear: Why Result-Oriented Claims Don’t Make the Cut Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Make Your Invention The Priority, What Track-1 Can Do For You!
- Navigating Final Rejections in Patent Prosecution: AFCP 2.0 vs. 37 CFR § 1.116
- A Clear POV on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Contour’s Claims Zoom Back Into Focus in Contour v. GoPro
- Understanding the Recent Federal Circuit Decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. on Patent Ineligibility
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
Archives
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017