To follow up on last week’s blog (here). I came across the Amicus Curiae brief filed by the Solicitor General in the Teva v Glaxo case regarding the skinny label provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act. I thought you would be interested in reading the brief for this important case so here it is! Enjoy the […]
I’ve been blogging about the chilling and hugely negative impact that the court decisions in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 18‑1976, have on the delicate balance between the generic and brand‑name industries struck by the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (better known as the Hatch-Waxman Act). I won’t recount the […]
The FDA released its proposed budget and legislative proposals for FY 2024 (summary can be found here). Besides certain requests for additional funding, reauthorization of the user fee programs for new and abbreviated animal drug programs, a host of safety issues, as well as new record retention requirements to fight data integrity problems in applications and […]
This morning, Sara W. Koblitz of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara posted a blog titled “Is The Skinny Label Back From the Dead?” (here) that suggests there may be hope for the skinny label after all. The blog details the GSK v. Teva decision and the potential dire implications for the skinny label. She also outlines […]
We have posted here, here, and here about the inducement to infringe issue that is being brought by an innovator against a generic company. There have been a flurry of other cases that have been brought by other innovators based on initial decisions in that case that, should they stand, impact the inducement to infringe […]
Ever since November 24, 1984, the effective date of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (aka Hatch-Waxman) which created the unique and delicate balance between innovation and safe and effective high quality generic copies of brand name products, the use of the “skinny label” has been a touchstone of that balance. Rather […]
