Generic Manufacturers Face Uphill Climb After Federal Circuit’s ‘Skinny Label’ Decision
Executive Summary
Split appeals court denies en banc review of GSK v. Teva ruling, but suggests the district court could consider GSK’s patent declarations in determining whether Teva’s label is evidence of inducement to infringe. Teva plans to file petition for Supreme Court review.
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.
‘Skinny Label’ Litigation: Generic Firms Rethinking Strategy, May Pursue Legislation
Generic manufacturers are being cautious on label carve-outs to avoid claims of induced infringement. Bright line rules are necessary, attorney says, and if GSK v. Teva decision is not reversed, legislation will be needed to preserve skinny label. Insurers also face potential liability for placement of skinny-label generics on formularies.
Blow For Industry As GSK-Teva ‘Skinny Label’ Decision Upheld
A controversial ruling involving labeling carve-outs that saw Teva hit with $235m in damages over its generic rival to GSK’s Coreg has been upheld after being reheard by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, the court sought to counter the suggestion that its decision upends Hatch-Waxman labeling carve-out provisions.