Quick 2 minutes read
Pharma Regulatory & IP Insights: June 2026 505(b)(2) Developments, Antitrust Closures, and EPO Case Law
Keep up with the fast-evolving pharmaceutical landscape with our comprehensive digest of June 2026's key regulatory approvals, global commercial shifts, and landmark intellectual property litigation.
1. Landmark June 2026 505(b)(2) FDA Approvals
The FDA's 505(b)(2) New Drug Application (NDA) pathway bridges the gap between high-risk new chemical entities and standard generics, allowing developers to introduce innovative changes to previously approved drugs. June 2026 saw significant patient-centric approvals in the rare disease and oncology support spaces.
TIOCYSTIN® (Tiopronin) | Casper Pharma LLC (NDA #212927)
Casper Pharma bypassed traditional generic ANDA routes to secure 505(b)(2) approval for TIOCYSTIN. While original immediate-release tiopronin tablets require strict fasting and create massive pill burdens, TIOCYSTIN introduces a unique 200 mg strength tablet alongside a 100 mg dose. Its modified delayed-release formulation alters the drug delivery mechanism to remove historical fasting restrictions, bypassing competitor patents to target a US market valued at $80–$90 million annually.
APREPITANT Injectable Emulsion | Azurity Pharmaceuticals (NDA #218754)
Approved for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), Azurity’s 505(b)(2) formulation optimises safety and administration:
Ready-to-Use (RTU): Eliminates multi-step clinical reconstitution, lowering dosing risks in oncology wards.
Polysorbate-80-Free: Removes a common synthetic surfactant known to cause acute hypersensitivity reactions in vulnerable cancer patients.
NAVITRUX® (Fosaprepitant) | Avyxa Holdings, LLC (NDA #220436)
Avyxa secured approval for NAVITRUX, a 150 mg lyophilised powder single-dose vial indicated for acute and delayed CINV in pediatric patients aged 6 months. Acting as an intravenous prodrug, it gives a multi-day antiemetic window from a single Day 1 dose. Crucially, it is formulated to bypass aggressive synthetic surfactants, minimising injection-site irritation and simplifying clinic workflows via a standard 20-to-30-minute infusion. The US generic market for fosaprepitant is currently valued at under $50 million.
2. Global Biopharma & Commercial Updates
CCI Closes 14-Year Pharma Antitrust Case: India's competition watchdog closed a long-running distribution practices case. Leading drugmakers—including Cipla, Sun Pharma, Dr. Reddy's, Pfizer, GSK, and Torrent—were cleared of anticompetitive supply chain restriction allegations.
AstraZeneca Aggrees to $34M Medicaid Settlement: AstraZeneca will pay $34 million to settle a Texas lawsuit alleging the company used illegal kickbacks—disguised as "free nursing services" and unbranded counseling—to influence Texas Medicaid providers to prescribe its products.
3. Intellectual Property Case Law Spotlight
EPO Case T 0594/24: Revocation of Astellas Pharma’s Mirabegron Patent
The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) officially set aside a prior decision and revoked European Patent No. 2345410 held by Astellas Pharma, following challenges from generic players including Sandoz, Teva, and Sanovel.
The patent covered a modified-release oral composition of mirabegron (used for overactive bladder) engineered to reduce food-effect variations in drug bioavailability.
The Board ruled that the main request lacked an inventive step under Article 56 EPC. Astellas' comparative data failed to link the specific dissolution parameters solely to a technical benefit, since the tested formulations varied concurrently in dosage forms and excipient ratios. Downgraded to simply "providing an alternative pharmaceutical composition," the Board determined that modifying a standard formulation to a once-daily modified-release layout falls within the routine competence of a skilled formulation chemist.
------------xx------------xx------------------
I encourage you to read the detailed post below.
Contents
Recent 505 (b) (2) filings
General information
India's CCI Closes 14-year Pharma Antitrust Case Against Drugmakers
AstraZeneca agrees to pay $34M to settle 'free nurses' kickback lawsuit from Texas
Intellectual Property
EPO Case T 0594/24: Revocation of Astellas Pharma’s Mirabegron Patent
Recent 505 (b) (2) filings
We follow 505 (b) (2) filings.
Generally, 505(b)(2) NDAs relate to changes compared to previously approved drugs, such as indication, active ingredient, fixed-combination, dosage form, route of administration, dosing regimen, strength, and formulation (not approvable under section 505(j)). More details 505 (b) (2) FDA approvals can be found here.
The details of June 2026, 505 (b) (2) filings are as follows:
General information
India's CCI Closes 14-year Pharma Antitrust Case Against Drugmakers
The case arose from a complaint filed in January 2012 by the All India Chemists and Distributors Federation, which alleged that the AIOCD and affiliated trade bodies imposed anticompetitive restrictions across the pharmaceutical supply chain through mandatory no-objection certificates, or NOCs, compulsory Product Information Service, or PIS, charges, fixed trade margins and coordinated market boycotts.
Leading pharmaceutical manufacturers including Cipla, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals and Torrent Pharmaceuticals have been cleared of long-running antitrust allegations after India's competition watchdog closed a 14-year-old case challenging pharmaceutical distribution practices.
AstraZeneca agrees to pay $34M to settle 'free nurses' kickback lawsuit from Texas
AstraZeneca will pay $34 million to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the company used illegal kickbacks to induce providers to write prescriptions for products paid for by Texas Medicaid.
The complaint, which was filed under the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act (THFPA), claimed that AZ provided free nursing services and reimbursements to healthcare providers “under the guise of non-branded counseling,” Texas said, to influence them to prescribe the company’s drugs.
Intellectual Property
EPO Case T 0594/24: Revocation of Astellas Pharma’s Mirabegron Patent
On April 21, 2026, the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its final decision in Case T 0594/24. The Board set aside a prior decision of the Opposition Division and revoked European Patent No. 2345410, held by Astellas Pharma Inc.. The case involved six prominent generic drug industry appellants, including Sandoz AG, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, and Sanovel. The Board concluded that the patent's main request failed to fulfil the legal requirements for an inventive step under Article 56 of the European Patent Convention (EPC).
Claim EP ‘410
A pharmaceutical composition for modified release, comprising (1) (R)-2-(2-aminothiazol-4-yl)-4'-[2-[(2-hydroxy-2-phenylethyl)amino]ethyl]acetic acid anilide, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, (2) at least one additive which ensures penetration of water into the pharmaceutical composition and which has a solubility such that the volume of water required for dissolving 1 g of the additive is 10 mL or less, and (3) a hydrogel-forming polymer having an average molecular weight of 100,000 to 5,000,000 or a viscosity of 12 mPa·s or more in a 5% aqueous solution at 25°C and 7,500 mPa·s or less in a 1% aqueous solution at 25°C,
wherein the additive which ensures penetration of water into the pharmaceutical composition is one compound, or two or more compounds selected from the group consisting of polyethylene glycol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, D-mannitol, lactose, sucrose, sodium chloride, and polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene glycol;
wherein the hydrogel-forming polymer is one compound, or two or more compounds selected from the group consisting of polyethylene oxide, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, and hydroxypropyl cellulose; and
wherein the drug dissolution rate from the pharmaceutical composition is 75% or less after 1.5 hours and at least 75% after 7 hours from the beginning of the dissolution test and wherein the dissolution test is carried out in accordance with the paddle method described in the United States Pharmacopoeia under the conditions that 900 mL of USP buffer, pH 6.8, is used and the paddle rotation speed is 50 to 200 rpm.
Background of the Invention and Original Dispute
The patent at the centre stage covers a modified-release oral pharmaceutical composition designed to administer mirabegron, which is utilised to treat an overactive bladder.
The independent claim, as granted (see above), required three core structural formulation elements:
- The active drug substance (mirabegron or its salt form).
- At least one water-penetration additive possessing a rapid solubility parameter (1" g" dissolving in 10" mL" or less than water), selected from a group including polyethene glycol (PEG), lactose, D-mannitol, and sucrose.
- A hydrogel-forming polymer with specific molecular weight parameters (100,000 to 5,000,000) or specific aqueous viscosity limits, chosen from polyethylene oxide (PEO), hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), and hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC).
Crucially, the claim also mandated a precise in vitro drug dissolution rate profile: 75% or less after 1.5" hours" and at least 75% after 7" hours" from the start of a standardised paddle-method dissolution test.
Six generic competitors filed oppositions. However, the Opposition Division originally rejected their challenges, ruling that the invention was sufficiently disclosed, novel, and non-obvious with respect to prior art document
D3a (EP 1559427 A1). The Opposition Division reasoned that because D3a did not explicitly prompt a developer to investigate or resolve food-effect issues, a skilled artisan would have no incentive to create the claimed dissolution limits. The opponents collectively appealed this decision.
Admittance of Late-Filed Evidence & Procedural Issues
Before addressing the merits of the invention, the Board evaluated numerous late-stage submissions under the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA 2020):
- The Respondent's New Arguments and Data: Astellas attempted to introduce new data columns and compiled experimental data points (on pages 8 to 12 of their April 1, 2026 response) to counter an intervenor's challenge. The Board refused to admit these segments, ruling that the technical questions were foreseeable from the outset of opposition and no exceptional circumstances justified their late presentation.
- Appellants' Technical Documents: Prior art textbook snippet D136, which covers the effects of food on drug bioavailability, was admitted because it represented established common general knowledge and directly addressed arguments already on file. However, document D135 was excluded as it did not specifically reference mirabegron clinical trials.
- Intervenor Submissions: New technical documents (D151 to D156) concerning polymer gelling properties filed by an intervenor on April 13, 2026, were excluded for altering the case too close to oral arguments without cogent cause.
The Core Technical Dispute: Inventive Step (Article 56 EPC)
1. Determining the Closest Prior Art
The Board determined that Example 4 (Table 5) in document D3a was the most appropriate starting point. Example 4 explicitly disclosed a mirabegron tablet containing lactose and PEG 6000 (additives), as well as HPC and HPMC (hydrogel polymers).
2. The Distinguishing Feature
The sole point of divergence between Astellas' patent and Example 4 of D3a was the in vitro drug dissolution rate profile. While D3a generated rapid-release (immediate-release) kinetics, the patent claimed a slower, modified-release range.
3. Failure to Substantiate the Technical Benefit
Astellas vigorously argued that the slower, modified-release profile yielded a significant therapeutic benefit: the reduction of the "food effect" (variations in drug bioavailability depending on whether a patient has eaten).
The Board strongly rejected this argument, citing established case law (T 197/86). Astellas' internal comparative data matched an experimental modified-release tablet (Example 8) against a structurally distinct immediate-release capsule (Comparative Example 1). Because these two assets varied concurrently in dosage form, total drug amount, and excipient ratios, the technical effect could not be convincingly attributed solely to the claimed distinguishing feature (the dissolution rate). Furthermore, Astellas failed to demonstrate a direct, continuous correlation between the claimed in vitro dissolution constraints and actual in vivo absorption behaviour across the whole scope of the claim.
4. Reformulation of the Technical Problem & Obviousness
Because the technical benefit was not substantiated, the Board downgraded the objective technical problem to simply: providing an alternative pharmaceutical composition of mirabegron.
The Board ruled that transitioning from an immediate-release formulation to a modified-release variant fell completely within the routine competence of a skilled formulation chemist. Prior art review articles (such as D55) already demonstrated that once-daily modified-release formulations were standard industry practice for enhancing patient compliance in overactive bladder therapeutics.
Additionally, alternative drug delivery systems, such as the Oral Controlled Absorption System (OCAS technology, described in D80), were widely known to use matching combinations of PEO hydrogels and PEG additives to slow release rates. The precise mathematical parameters chosen for the dissolution rate were therefore deemed an arbitrary selection within routine lab practices.
Crucially, the Board noted that even if a reduction of the food effect had been accepted as a verified benefit, the invention would still be obvious. FDA guidelines (D20) confirm that assessing food effects is a routine screening milestone during early drug development. Upon testing a standard immediate-release mirabegron layout, a developer would naturally detect food-related bioavailability issues and inevitably deploy established OCAS platforms to eliminate those variations.
Final Order
Concluding that the claimed subject-matter was entirely obvious to a person skilled in the art, the Technical Board of Appeal ordered that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the European Patent EP 2345410 be officially revoked.
#PharmaRegulations, #505b2, #IntellectualProperty, #PharmaPatent, #GenericDrugs, #FDAApproval, #OncologyCare, #RareDisease, #EPOLaw
