Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL v. NOVO NORDISK A/S

Docket No.: 10-844
Certiorari Granted: 06/27/11
Argued: December 5, 2011
Decided: 04/17/12

Topics:

Medicare, judicial review, patent

PartyNames: Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., et al. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, et al.
Petitioner: Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., et al.
Respondent: Novo Nordisk A/S, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Citation: 601 F.3d 1359
Supreme Court Docket

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., et al.
v.
Novo Nordisk A/S, et al.
Background:

When the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approves a drug for multiple uses, the Hatch-Waxman Act allows generic drug makers to avoid contested patent litigation by marketing generic versions of the drug solely for non-patented uses. The FDA lacks the authority and expertise needed to verify the patent information submitted by name-brand drug companies, however, so it defers to their descriptions of the scope of their patents. Such companies can therefore block the approval of generic drugs by submitting overbroad patent descriptions to the FDA, effectively extending their patents to cover non-infringing uses. To combat this problem, the Act allows a "counterclaim seeking an order requiring the [patent] holder to correct or delete the patent information submitted by the holder * * * on the ground that the patent does not claim * * * an approved method of using the drug." 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(C)(ii)(I). In a 2-1 decision that conflicts with this Court's precedents and recent D.C. Circuit authority, the Federal Circuit held that the counterclaim provision effectively authorizes only "delet[ingl" improperly listed patents, but not "correct[ing]" information that misrepresents the scope of the approved uses claimed by a patent. That ruling expressly invalidates longstanding FDA regulations defining "patent information," which the FDA deems "essential" to administering the Act, without seeking the agency's views.

Question Presented:

Whether this counterclaim provision applies where (1) there is "an approved method of using the drug" that "the patent does not claim," and (2) the brand submits "patent information" to the FDA that misstates the patent's scope, requiring "correct[ion]."

Question:

(1) Does the counterclaim provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act apply when there is "an approved method of using the drug" that "the patent does not claim"? (2) Does the counterclaim provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act apply when the brand submits "patent information" to the FDA that misstates the patent's scope, requiring "correct[ion]?"

Note:

When the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approves a drug for multiple uses, the Hatch-Waxman Act allows generic drug makers to avoid contested patent litigation by marketing generic versions of the drug solely for non-patented uses. The FDA lacks the authority and expertise needed to verify the patent information submitted by name-brand drug companies, however, so it defers to their descriptions of the scope of their patents. Such companies can therefore block the approval of generic drugs by submitting overbroad patent descriptions to the FDA, effectively extending their patents to cover non-infringing uses. To combat this problem, the Act allows a "counterclaim seeking an order requiring the [patent] holder to correct or delete the patent information submitted by the holder * * * on the ground that the patent does not claim * * * an approved method of using the drug." 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(C)(ii)(I). In a 2-1 decision that conflicts with this Court's precedents and recent D.C. Circuit authority, the Federal Circuit held that the counterclaim provision effectively authorizes only "delet[ingl" improperly listed patents, but not "correct[ing]" information that misrepresents the scope of the approved uses claimed by a patent. That ruling expressly invalidates longstanding FDA regulations defining "patent information," which the FDA deems "essential" to administering the Act, without seeking the agency's views.

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL v. NOVO NORDISK A/S
ORAL ARGUMENT

12/05/11

Listen to Oral Argument in CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL v. NOVO NORDISK A/S
Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED
Vote: 9-0
Majority: Unanimous
Concurring: Sotomayor
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)