Minnesota Law Review

Changing Course to Navigate the Patent Safe Harbor Post-Momenta

The patent safe harbor, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), codifies an exception to the general concept of patent exclusivity that excuses entities from infringement liability for activities reasonably related to submitting information under federal laws that regulate drugs. For the past three decades, this provision has operated in a pharmaceutical industry dominated by small molecule drugs to balance the benefits of price reduction from generic competition with the costs of competition’s potentially stifling effects on innovation. Unfortunately, evolution of the industry toward complex biopharmaceuticals—coupled with the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., extending safe harbor protection to activities occurring after FDA approvalhas upset this equilibrium. This Note explores the underlying factors contributing to the upset and proposes a solution for restoring balance in anticipation of the advent of follow-on biologic competition. Specifically, the Note rejects a bright-line application of the safe harbor along the pre- and post-FDA approval threshold that was the focus of Momenta and its predecessor, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC. The Note instead advocates for a temporally unrestricted safe harbor that includes provisions for minimizing patentees’ market harm using notification, exclusivity, and compensation mechanisms. These mechanisms work to protect the value of the manufacturing method patents threatened by Momenta, increasing the chances for attaining a successful follow-on biologic regime.

 

 

:: View PDF

News & Events

  • Fall Submissions Open – Headnotes

    The Minnesota Law Review: Headnotes fall submissions period is open. For more information, please visit our submissions page. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Vol. 97 Piece Quoted in Mother Jones Article

    A recent Mother Jones article predicting how the Roberts Court would resolve King v. Burwell draws on How Business Fares in the Supreme Court from Volume 97. You can read the article here. Share this: on Twitter on Facebook on Google+

  • Welcome to De Novo

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days