- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
June 17, 2024Emily Tremblay Named IP Rising Star by Euromoney in 2024 Women in Business Law Awards
-
June 17, 2024Three Robins Kaplan Partners Named BTI Client Service All-Stars
-
June 13, 2024Brendan Johnson Named South Dakota Trial Lawyer of The Year
-
June 27, 2024Sex Abuse Litigation
-
June 10-11, 20242024 Probate and Trust Law Section Conference
-
June 11, 2024FBA 2024 Federal Practice Seminar
-
June 2024Robins Kaplan Secures Landmark $7.75 Million Verdict in Aerosol Duster Misuse Case
-
June 2024To Seize or Not to Seize: Campus Protests and Police Uses of Force
-
June 2024Communicating Your Estate Plan: A Helpful Tool, Not a Fix-All
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
Biogen Int'l GmbH v. Banner Life Scis. LLC
Because defendant’s NDA product does not include any salt or ester of the active ingredient in Plaintiff’s reference drug, patent term extension did not apply and judgment of non-infringement was affirmed.
April 21, 2020
![GENERICally Speaking: A Hatch Waxman Litigation Bulletin](/-/media/images/newsletters/generically-speaking-social-graphics/generically-speaking-nwsltr-badge.jpg?la=en&h=160&w=390&la=en&hash=314B8432ED62E0647D7FC4565EC18B79)
Case Name: Biogen Int'l GmbH v. Banner Life Scis. LLC, 956 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. April 21, 2020)(Circuit Judges Lourie, Moore, and Chen presiding; Opinion by Lourie, J.) (Appeal from D. Del., Stark, J.)
Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Tecfidera® (dimethyl fumarate); U.S. Patent No. 7,619,001 (“the ’001 patent”)
Nature of the Case and Issue(s) Presented: The Hatch-Waxman act provides branded drug makers with an extension of the patent term (“PTE”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 156. This is because while awaiting FDA approval, a patent holder may not commercialize its product, thereby losing part of the patent term. Under Section 156, Biogen obtained a PTE on the ’001 patent, which claimed methods for treating multiple sclerosis using dimethyl fumarate (“DMF”) and monomethyl fumarate (“MMF”). Upon administration, one of DMF’s methyl ester groups was metabolized to yield (MMF) before reaching its pharmacological site of action. Prior to the expiration of Biogen’s PTE, Banner submitted a new drug application application under 21 U.S.C. 355(b)(2), for its MMF drug product that it claimed was bioequivalent Biogen’s DMF product Tecfidera®. Biogen brought a patent infringement action against Banner in the District of Delaware, and Banner moved for a judgment of non-infringement. The issue in Biogen was whether Biogen’s PTE covered the MMF metabolite. The district court agreed with Banner’s interpretation of § 156 and rendered a judgment of non-infringement. It rejected Biogen’s argument that extension of a method of treatment patent under § 156(b)(2) is not limited to uses of the approved product.. Analyzing the language of Section 156, the Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that the patent term extension applied to DMF only.
Why Banner Prevailed: Biogen argued that Section 156’s extension applies to any compound that shared an “active moiety” with the approved compound, and that because DMF and MMF shared an active moiety, Banner’s proposed product infringed the extended ’001 patent. Biogen emphasized this point by pointing to Banner’s reliance on Tecfidera’s clinical data. Relying on the language of the statute, the Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that Section 156 limited the scope of the extension to “any use approved for the product” and defined “product” as “the active ingredient of … a new drug … including any salt or ester of the active ingredient.” As MMF was not an ester of DMF, but rather a de-esterified version of DMF, the Federal Circuit found that Section 156 “did not encompass a metabolite of the active ingredient or its de-esterified form.”
Related Professionals
Christopher A. Pinahs
Partner
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.