API and IP Newsletter
Contents
A brief analysis of USDMFs filed by Indian companies in July 2020.
General information.
Dr Reddy's to launch 30 more products in US market this year
FDA clarifies reference-listed drugs, other ANDA terms in final guidance.
China adopts revised patent law with Hatch-Waxman-like incentives for innovative drugs
Intellectual Property.
NL – NOVARTIS V. MYLAN / DEFERASIROX (Exjade)
A brief analysis of USDMFs filed by Indian companies in July 2020
DMF list is updated every quarter at USFDA website. It is updated till September 2020 for the months, July, August and September. This week, we have analyzed DMFs filed by Indian companies in July 2020. In subsequent Newsletters, we will cover the other months.
In July 2020, 50 DMFs were filed in total, out of which 25 DMFs were filed by Indian companies. Century Pharmaceuticals filed 5 DMFs, Biocon, Cadila Pharmaceutical, Cadila Healthcare filed 2 each. The objective of this newsletter is not to state mere statistics but to provide technical insights.
General information
Dr Reddy's to launch 30 more products in US market this year
Dr Reddy's Laboratories is set to launch 30 more products in the US market this year, said Saumen Chakraborty, President, CFO & Global Head-IT at DRL, after the company beat estimates in the second quarter with growth seen across geographies. On API, he said, “Active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and service business has high growth potential. (Read more)
FDA clarifies reference-listed drugs, other ANDA terms in final guidance
Generic drug makers have received finalized guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration. In finalizing a 2017 draft, the agency gives sponsors of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) information about how to identify reference listed drugs (RLDs), further details on reference standards, and what forms the basis for an ANDA submission. (Read more)
Guideline could be downloaded here
China adopts revised patent law with Hatch-Waxman-like incentives for innovative drugs
The first applicant with a small molecule generic product that successfully challenges a reference drug patent receives a 12-month exclusivity period against approval of another generic version of the same drug. (Read more)
Intellectual Property
NL – NOVARTIS V. MYLAN / DEFERASIROX (Exjade)
Fact:
Granted patent EP 0914 118
In Europe, as a practice, innovator companies would send Warning Letters (WL) to Gx companies. Novartis would have sent WL to Mylan, citing their patent EP 0914 118. On 10 June 2020, Mylan responded that they would not honor pediatric extension term and could launch on 30 August 2021. Mylan challenged validity of pediatric extension (PIP) and alleged it (PIP) is not valid.
Novartis sought preliminary injunctions against Mylan to essentially stop them from marketing the Deferasirox (Brand name: Exjade) prior to expiry of the Paediatric Extension (PIP) for Exjade.
The twist in the tale was that Exjade had received an orphan designation from the European Commission in 2002, but this designation was unilaterally revoked by Novartis in 2016.
It is important to note, for conducting paediatric study, innovator could get either,
Regulations here
Novartis opted for 1st option above. Mylan argued, the Paediatric Extension is invalid in this case, arguing that Exjade had previously been designated as an orphan drug, in theory entitling it to an extension of the regulatory market exclusivity with two years. And in Mylan’s view, 6-months PIP extension after SPC is invalid.
Judge opined in favour of Novartis, held that there is no double reward for paediatric studies, since due to the expiration of orphan drug designation, no market exclusivity extension has been granted. Detailed case here.
Disclaimer
Sidvim LifeSciences Private Ltd has taken due care and caution in developing this document. Since the data used for analysis in this document is based on the information available in the public domain, its adequacy or accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. This document is for information only and Sidvim is not responsible for losses that may or may not arise due to any decisions made based on the same. No part of the document shall constitute or be represented as a legal opinion of any kind or nature. No warranties or guarantees, expressed or implied, are included in or intended by the document, except that it has been prepared in accordance with the current generally accepted practices and standards consistent with the level of care and skill exercised under similar circumstances by professional consultants or firms that perform the same or similar services.