FDA Wins Abilify Exclusivity Battle; Court Rejects Otsuka's 'Legal Equivalence'
Executive Summary
Otsuka claimed Alkermes' Aristada is 'legally equivalent' to Abilify but DC Circuit deferred to FDA's finding that the two have different active moieties and thus Abilify's three-year exclusivity does not apply to Aristada.
You may also be interested in...
Judge Jackson’s Patent, FDA Rulings Show She Is ‘Super Smart’ And Would Be Beneficial For Pharma
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.
Two Firms Fight FDA Exclusivity Battles In US
Alvogen contends Teva forfeited 180-day exclusivity with its settlement, while Sandoz claims Sanofi’s MS drug Aubagio isn’t an NCE because it is an active metabolite.
US FDA Exclusivity Battles Continue: Alvogen and Sandoz Challenge Buprenorphine, Aubagio Awards
Alvogen contends Teva forfeited 180-day exclusivity with its settlement, while Sandoz claims Sanofi’s MS drug Aubagio isn’t an NCE because it is an active metabolite.