Takeda’s Take On Patent Certification Rules In Colchicine Dispute Rejected
This article was originally published in The Pink Sheet Daily
A federal judge tosses Takeda’s suit against FDA, finding Hikma did not need to reference Takeda’s Colcrys or certify Colcrys patents to obtain approval of its colchicine product.
You may also be interested in...
Supreme Court nominee issued three decisions on Hatch-Waxman regime as district court judge, including case in which she ruled against the FDA’s denial of orphan drug designation and another in which she deferred to the agency’s view on exclusivity. Her analysis of facts may play a role if the court takes up a case on administrative agency deference.
Pursing legal action against the agency in an area where it is sometimes vulnerable, Par argues that amending its proposed label did not interrupt paragraph IV certification for the firm's colchicine ANDA.
Stakeholders suggest a variety of USPTO and FDA actions that could help ensure patents do not improperly delay generic and biosimilar competition.