Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003:The Effect on Entry of Generic Drugs into the Marketplace
The Hatch-Waxman Act, enacted in 1984, first permitted the marketing of generic pharmaceuticals based on a showing of bioequivalence, not safety and efficacy, through the use of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”). By significantly lowering the barrier to entry for generics, this change provided the impetus for rapid growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry in the United States. In exchange for this barrier lowering, Congress provided the holder of the previously approved new drug application (“NDA”) with patent term extensions based on FDA regulatory delay.
Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the NDA holder must submit information to the FDA regarding patents that cover the drug product or a method of using it. The FDA then lists these patents in the “Orange Book.” A company seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of the product by submitting an ANDA must make at least one of four types of certifications to the FDA regarding patents. One type is a “Paragraph IV certification,” which certifies that a patent listed in the Orange Book for a drug product is invalid or will not be infringed by the ANDA product.
The filing of a Paragraph IV certification is an act that can qualify as patent infringement. An applicant that files a Paragraph IV certification must notify the patent owner and NDA holder, and describe the factual and legal bases for the certification that the patent is invalid or not infringed. If a lawsuit is subsequently filed, FDA approval is stayed for 30 months from receipt of the notice. If the patent owner or NDA holder does not bring an infringement action before the expiration of 45 days from the date notice is received, approval of the application may be effective immediately.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?