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

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]