Keeping pace with the ever-changing life sciences industry, Morrison Foerster stays on top of the trends and political, legal, and economic drivers to support striking the balance between innovative discovery and purposeful business planning to assure our clients continued success. MoFo Life Sciences shares timely legal and business insights and in-depth analyses on trends and the complex technologies at the heart of the global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and AgTech fields.Learn more about our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/life-sciences-healthcare" target="_self">Life Sciences practice</a>.<h2 dir="ltr">ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Subscribe

Life Sciences and Healthcare Group

Life Sciences Podcast

Patent Counseling + Prosecution

FDA Regulatory + Life Sciences Compliance

FDA + Healthcare Regulatory and Compliance 

Life Sciences Transactions + Licensing

Resources

Editors

230315-new-mofo-life-sciences-logo.jpg

Dr. Meghan Poon counsels clients on patent preparation and prosecution, portfolio strategy, and IP due diligence in the areas of biotechnology and biologics. She has significant experience in diverse technologies including antibodies, cell therapies, gene therapies, diagnostics, and gene-edited plants. She represents clients ranging from large international pharmaceutical companies to midsized companies, startups, and universities.Meghan has filed numerous Patent Term Extension applications to secure additional term for her clients’ patents, which cover FDA-approved products. In addition, Meghan has extensive experience addressing complex obviousness-double patenting and subject matter eligibility issues impacting her clients’ patent portfolios. Meghan also represents clients in both investor-side and target-side due diligence, in deals from seed funding to initial public offerings.Prior to law school, Meghan attended graduate school at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she received a Ph.D. in biological chemistry based on her work on protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions at a molecular level. Meghan is the author of several scientific publications and has presented her research at international conferences.Meghan received her J.D. from the University of Southern California Law School and spent a year as a visiting student at Santa Clara University, where she focused on intellectual property.

poon_meghan_blog_150x150.png

poon_meghan_common_640x280.jpg

poon_meghan_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

poon_meghan_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

poon_meghan_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Morrison Foerster's patent prosecution and patent strategy team is highly qualified with more than 100 advanced degrees and multilingual capabilities.

With 80+ Ph.D.s, more than 100 advanced degrees, and multi-lingual capabilities, including Chinese and German, we offer clients around the world a patent prosecution and counseling practice that is unrivaled in its depth of industry and technical experience.

Patent Strategy + Prosecution

Patent Prosecution | Patent Firm

Band 1: Intellectual Property: Patent Prosecution, California

Tier 1: Patent Strategy & Management

Recommended: Patent Prosecution

Patent Strategy Firm Of The Year

 Intellectual Property: Patents: Prosecution

Recommended for Patent Prosecution in California and DC Metro Area

Highly Recommended: Patent Prosecution, California

Patent Prosecution, US 

Dr. Meghan Poon counsels clients on patent preparation and prosecution, portfolio strategy, and IP due diligence in the areas of biotechnology and biologics. She has significant experience in diverse technologies including antibodies, cell therapies, gene therapies, diagnostics, and gene-edited plants.

Meghan Poon

Wolfgang advises clients on contentious and non-contentious matters involving their most valuable intellectual property assets in life sciences, digital, and high-tech industries.His subjects of focus include research and development collaborations, complex licensing agreements, and other technology transactions, as well as know-how protection strategies, and employee invention law. He also has substantial experience in litigating patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property assets, often in a multijurisdictional context. In addition, Wolfgang and his team frequently clear trademarks and ad campaigns and prosecute trademark applications.Wolfgang is co-editor of our <a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/" dir="ltr" target="_blank">MoFo Life Sciences Blog</a>.Wolfgang is a partner of Morrison Foerster based in our German office in Berlin.<h4 dir="ltr">Representative Transactional Matters</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>U.S.-based BioTech fund on various research collaborations and other transactions with German start-ups or research institutions.</li><li>Negotiate multimillion-euro strategic partnership between two AgTech leaders concerning the development and commercialization of pest-resistant transgenic traits.</li><li>Craft global multi-million collaboration regarding AI-powered robotic MaaS.</li><li>UK-based digital health company on product roll-out of RPM applications in Germany; coordinate international expansion.</li><li>Advise numerous German start-ups on their U.S. expansion.</li><li>Draft diverse global patent and know-how license agreements in the areas of AgTech and life sciences—including gene licensing and licensing of genome editing technologies (e.g., CRISPR)—and medical devices; draft correlating supply and distribution agreements.</li><li>Structure IP rights in connection with joint ventures and other M&A transactions, including the carve-out of a patent-heavy semiconductor business comprising nine jurisdictions into a German–U.S. joint venture.</li><li dir="ltr">Advise on government-funded, multi-partner R&D projects and/or R&D projects with academic institutions, as well as on employee invention law.</li></ul><h4 dir="ltr">Representative Contentious IP Matters</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>Lead counsel in an international dispute between software companies on rights and obligations following termination of a multi-million licensing and distribution arrangement; coordinate local counsel.</li><li>Defend Japanese chip manufacturer in high-profile SEP-litigation; advise on global settlement arrangement.</li><li>Represent leading internet retailer in patent infringement and concurrent invalidity proceedings in the context of a multijurisdictional dispute concerning touch-screen technology.</li><li>Represent diverse pharmaceutical and life sciences companies in national and cross-border patent infringement proceedings and other technology-related disputes, including preliminary injunctions as well as pre‑trial discovery and inspection proceedings, concerning, inter alia, drug-coating technologies, toner cartridges, medicinal gases, transgenic plants, and vaccines.</li><li dir="ltr">Conduct trademark, copyright, and false advertising litigation, including, most notably, a high-profile trademark litigation for a German bank, and a nine-country cross-border trademark litigation involving a famous pharmaceutical brand.</li></ul>

Dr. Wolfgang Schönig berät Mandanten zum Schutz des geistigen Eigentums sowohl in streitigen als auch nichtstreitigen Angelegenheiten, mit einem besonderen Fokus auf die IP-rechtliche Beratung von Unternehmen aus den Bereichen Life Sciences, Digitalwirtschaft und High-Tech.Zu seinen Beratungsschwerpunkten gehören Forschungs- und Entwicklungskooperationen, komplexe Lizenzvertragsgestaltungen und andereTechnologie-Transaktionen, sowie Know-how-Schutz-Strategien und das Arbeitnehmererfinderrecht. Er verfügt zudem über umfangreiche Prozesserfahrung zur Durchsetzung von Patenten, Marken- und anderen IP-Rechten, häufig auch in einem grenzüberschreitenden Kontext. Darüber hinaus bewertet Dr. Wolfgang Schönig zusammen mit seinem Team regelmäßig die Rechtskonformität von Werbekampagnen, prüft die Verfügbarkeit von Marken und entwickelt entsprechende Anmeldestrategien.Dr. Wolfgang Schönig ist Co-Editor des Life Sciences Blogs von Morrison Foerster.Er hat seinen Doktortitel an der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf und seinen LL.M. an der Fordham School of Law in New York erworben, jeweils mit Schwerpunkt im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz. Seinen MBA-Abschluss erhielt er von der European University in Barcelona.Dr. Wolfgang Schönig ist Partner des deutschen Büros von Morrison Foerster in Berlin.<h4 dir="ltr">Repräsentative Transaktionen</h4><ul><li dir="ltr">BioTech-Fonds mit Sitz in den USA bei verschiedenen Forschungskooperationen und anderen Transaktionen mit deutschen Start-ups oder Forschungseinrichtungen</li><li dir="ltr">Verhandlung einer hochvolumigen strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen zwei Technologieführern im Bereich Crop Science betreffend der Entwicklung und Kommerzialisierung von bestimmten Resistenzen</li><li dir="ltr">Gestaltung einer globalen Multi-Millionen-Zusammenarbeit für KI-gestützte Roboter</li><li dir="ltr">Ein in Großbritannien ansässiges Unternehmen für digitale Gesundheit bei der Markteinführung von RPM-Anwendungen in Deutschland; Koordination der internationalen Expansion</li><li dir="ltr">Beratung zahlreicher deutscher Start-ups bei deren US-Expansion</li><li dir="ltr">Strukturierung und Verhandlung diverser Patent- und Know-How-Lizenzen in den Bereichen Ag Tech und Life Sciences – einschließlich Fragen zu genome editing wie CRISPR-Medizingeräte, sowie Gestaltung von Softwarelizenzverträgen und Erstellung korrespondierender Liefer- und Vertriebsvereinbarungen</li><li dir="ltr">Strukturierung von IP-Rechten im Zusammenhang mit Joint Ventures und anderen M&A-Transaktionen, darunter die Koordination eines neun Länder umfassenden IP Carve-Outs im Rahmen eines Halbleiter-JVs</li><li dir="ltr">Beratung zu staatlich geförderten Multi-Partner F&E-Projekten und/oder F&E-Projekten mit akademischen Einrichtungen sowie zum Arbeitnehmererfindungsrecht</li></ul><h4 dir="ltr">Repräsentative IP-Streitigkeiten</h4><ul><li dir="ltr">Lead Counsel in einem internationalen Rechtsstreit zwischen Softwareunternehmen über Rechte und Pflichten nach Beendigung einer millionenschweren Lizenz- und Vertriebsvereinbarung; Koordinierung der lokalen Anwälte</li><li dir="ltr">Verteidigung eines japanischen Chipherstellers in einem prominenten Streitfall bezüglich Standardessentieller Patente (SEP); Beratung zu einer globalen Vergleichsregelung</li><li dir="ltr">Verteidigung einer führenden Internetplattform gegen Ansprüche eines Patenttrolls wegen vermeintlicher Verletzung von Patent bezüglich Touchscreen-Technologie sowie korrespondierende US-Streitigkeiten</li><li dir="ltr">Vertretung von Pharma- und Life Science-Unternehmen in nationalen und grenzüberschreitenden Patentverletzungsverfahren und anderen technologiebezogenen Streitigkeiten, einschließlich einstweiliger Verfügungsverfahren und vorprozessualer Beweissicherungs- und Besichtigungsverfahren, unter anderem in Bezug auf Arzneimittelbeschichtungstechnologien, Tonerkartuschen, medizinische Gase, transgene Pflanzen und Impfstoffe</li></ul>

schonig_wolfgang_blog_150x150.png

schonig_wolfgang_common_640x280.jpg

schonig_wolfgang_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

schonig_wolfgang_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

schonig_wolfgang_social_600x600.jpg

Our life sciences and healthcare clients, from emerging innovation drivers to iconic brands, rely on our unrivaled depth of knowledge and technological experien

Life Sciences: IP/Patent Litigation

Life Sciences

Global: Life Sciences

Asia-Pacific Region: Life Sciences

Healthcare: Life Sciences

China Healthcare and Life Sciences: Foreign Firms

US: Biotechnology Law

Japan: Life Sciences

China: Life Sciences: International Law Firm

Wolfgang Schönig is a partner of Morrison Foerster (International) LLP based in our German office in Berlin. His practice specialty is advising on IP aspects relative to transactions in, among others, the life sciences, AgTech and pharmaceuticals industry, as well as legal representation in IP disputes. Wolfgang is specialized in research and development collaborations, complex licensing agreements, technology acquisitions, know-how protection strategies, and employee invention law.

Wolfgang Schönig focuses his practice on IP aspects relative to transactions in the digital, telecoms, high tech, life sciences, and pharmaceuticals industry, as well as legal representation in IP disputes.

Wolfgang Schönig advises clients on IP aspects relating to transactions in, among others, the life sciences, AgTech and pharmaceuticals industry, as well as legal representation in IP disputes. His additional focus areas include research and development collaborations, complex licensing agreements, technology acquisitions, know-how protection strategies, and employee invention law.

Wolfgang Schönig

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo Life Sciences shares timely legal and business insights and in-depth analyses on trends and the complex technologies at the heart of the global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and AgTech fields.

life-sciences-featured-image.jpg

life-sciences-featured-image

Announcements

Welcome to Mofo Life Sciences

Blog - Terms of Use

Cookies

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech Blog

MOFO TECH

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

EMPLOYMENT LAW COMMENTARY

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

SOCIALLY AWARE

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insights Blog

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS INSIGHTS

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

CLASS DISMISSED

MoFo Life Sciences

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Life Sciences Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from MoFo Life Sciences. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Because No One is Immune to the Law

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Agtech

Antitrust

Asia

Bioinformatics

Biotech

Blockchain

Cell + Gene Therapy

CFIUS

Corporate + Venture Capital

COVID-19

Data Analytics

Digital Health

Employment

European Union

Financing

Global

Healthcare

Intellectual Property

Licensing + Commercial

Litigation

Medical Devices + Diagnostics

Pharma

Privacy + Data Security

Product Liability + Class Action

Rare Disease

Regulatory

Startup

United Kingdom

United States

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Meghan McLean Poon Ph.D.

More

In Patent Prosecution, You Have the Right to Remain Silent. Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You in the Court of Law

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements for Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

AI Agent as a Service in Medtech: Key Considerations for Commercial Contracts

HHS Secretary to FDA: Consider Elimination of GRAS Self-affirmation Pathway

Federal Circuit Clarifies Patent Term Extension Calculation for Reissue Patents

On October 14, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a virtual public workshop on transparency surrounding Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) enabled medical devices.  The workshop focused on the role of transparency in enhancing the safe and effective use of AI/ML technology in the medical device space, with an emphasis on information-sharing methods for patients, caregivers, and providers.Below are five key takeaways from the workshop:<ol><li>Cultivating user awareness for both patients and healthcare providers will be a key area of focus for AI/ML-enabled device manufacturers and regulators going forward.  In presentations and panel discussions, many panelists expressed concern as to whether healthcare providers would understand the limitations of AI/ML devices and be able to properly interpret and use the data in administering care.</li><li>Transparency and effective communication of AI/ML medical device labeling will be important to consider for all user types.  Panelists discussed the idea of a nutrition facts label approach to AI/ML device labeling, using the analogy of food labeling to describe the balance of information and detail needed to enable users to make informed decisions.</li><li>Bias and systemic discrimination remain persistent issues in the AI/ML space.  FDA and various industry stakeholders expressed commitment to ensuring that the data used to train AI/ML models are diverse and accurately reflect the patient population in which the technology will be used.  Use of synthetic or artificial datasets to close the data gap and ensure devices are trained using ethnically diverse datasets has been a particularly relevant discussion.</li><li>Inequality, from both a patient and a manufacturer perspective, was a key topic of conversation during the workshop.  Panelists discussed the potential for inequitable access to AI/ML devices across different patient populations, as well as the potential for unequal access to data amongst manufacturers in the industry.</li><li>Transparency surrounding tracking and reporting of device error or malfunctions will be an important topic of discussion as AI/ML-enabled devices are made available.  Panelists discussed the potential for two-way communication between manufacturers and users, and FDA’s role in promoting such transparency.</li></ol>The recording of the webcast, transcript, and presentation slides will be posted on the Workshop webpage within the next few weeks.  FDA will continue to receive and review comments and questions regarding transparency of AI/ML-enabled medical devices online on the public docket.  Comments may be submitted on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/" target="_blank">regulations.gov</a> (Docket No. FDA-2019-N-1185) until November 15, 2021.For questions on any of the topics discussed at this meeting, please contact the authors or a member of MoFo’s <a target="_blank" href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/fda-life-sciences-compliance.html">FDA Regulatory + Compliance</a> practice.

mofolifesciences-medical-devices.jpg

Five Key Takeaways from FDA’s Transparency of AI/ML-Enabled Medical Devices Virtual Workshop

FDA Clinical Decision Support Software vs. EU’s Medical Device Regulation

mofolifesciences-medical-devices

On October 14, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a virtual public workshop on transparency surrounding Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning 

Five Key Takeaways from FDA’s Transparency of AI/ML-Enabled Medical Devices Virtual Workshop

On September 30, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) <a target="_blank" href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/30/2021-21324/interpreting-sameness-of-gene-therapy-products-under-the-orphan-drug-regulations-guidance-for">announced</a> final guidance titled “<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fda.gov/media/134731/download">Interpreting Sameness of Gene Therapy Products under the Orphan Drug Regulations</a>.”  The guidance finalizes the January 2020 draft guidance and provides FDA’s current perspective on certain criteria that help determine sameness of human gene therapy products for orphan drug designation and exclusivity purposes.  In the Federal Register notice announcing the final guidance, FDA noted that it received comments on the draft guidance that “generally supported the approach described in the guidance.”  FDA considered these comments and requests for additional clarification when finalizing the guidance, “adding clarification and examples, as feasible.”<h4>Background</h4>The Orphan Drug Act (ODA) seeks to incentivize the development of drugs for rare diseases, defined in the ODA as those affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.  The incentives include a 25% tax credit on applicable research and development expenditures, waived user fees when submitting applications to FDA, and the potential for a seven-year period of orphan drug exclusivity for the approved indication.  Manufacturers must request and be granted designation before they are eligible for any incentives. When FDA grants marketing approval for a designated orphan drug for a use or indication within the designation disease or condition, FDA will determine if the drug is eligible for orphan drug exclusivity.  Orphan drug exclusivity is product and indication specific, meaning FDA cannot approve a drug containing the same active moiety for the same intended use or indication during the period of marketing exclusivity. FDA uses different criteria in determining sameness for macromolecule and small molecule drugs [1]. The FDA defines “same drug” for macromolecule drugs as “a drug that contains the same principal molecular structural features (but not necessarily all of the same structural features) and is intended for the same use as a previously approved drug, except that, if the subsequent drug can be shown to be clinically superior, it will not be considered to be the same drug." [2]If a sponsor requests orphan drug designation for a drug that is the same as a drug already approved for the same use or indication, the sponsor must provide a plausible hypothesis that its drug is clinically superior to the already approved drug.  Designation as clinically superior is based on greater efficacy, safety, or a major contribution to patient care.  In order to receive the seven-year market exclusivity, a sponsor must demonstrate that its product is actually clinically superior.<h4>Interpreting Sameness of Gene Therapy Products</h4>Human gene therapy products may qualify for orphan drug designation if they are intended for the treatment of a rare disease or condition and the sponsor sufficiently establishes a basis for expecting the drug to be effective in treating the rare disease.  The existing regulations do not describe how the “same drug” definition applies specifically to gene therapy products for orphan drug designation and exclusivity.  Mirroring the January 2020 draft guidance, FDA’s final guidance provides some insight into the current interpretation of how the “sameness” criteria applies to gene therapies.Assuming that two gene therapy products are intended for the same use or indication, FDA will consider the “principal molecular structural features” of the gene therapy products when determining “sameness.”  In the final guidance, FDA states its intention to generally “consider certain key features such as transgenes and vectors used in gene therapy products to be ‘principal molecular structural features’ under this regulation.”  However, FDA does not intend to classify two gene therapy products as different based solely on minor differences in the transgenes and/or vectors, and will determine whether differences are minor differences on a case-by-case basis.For two gene therapy products intended for the same use or indication, if the products express different transgenes, FDA generally intends to consider them to be different drugs because they will not contain the same principal molecular structural features.  This would be the case regardless of whether the two gene therapy products at issue have or use the same vector.  FDA also intends to consider vectors from a different viral group to be different for purposes of determining “sameness.”  Additionally, FDA clarified in the final guidance that it will consider two gene therapy products from the same viral group to be different “when the differences between the vectors impact factors such as tropism, immune response avoidance, or potential insertional mutagenesis.”  FDA intends to determine whether variants of a vector from the same viral group are the same or different on a case-by-case basis.In a case where two gene therapy products express the same transgene and have/use the same vector, FDA may also consider additional features of the final product when determining “sameness,” such as regulatory elements (e.g., promoters or enhancers).  In these instances, FDA generally intends to determine “sameness” of gene therapy products on a case-by-case basis.[1] 21 CFR 316.3(b)(14).[2] 21 CFR 316.3(b)(14)(ii).

bondoc_brigid_blog_150x150.png

bondoc_brigid_common_640x280.jpg

bondoc_brigid_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

bondoc_brigid_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

bondoc_brigid_social_600x600.jpg

Brigid is a food, drug, and medical device lawyer who counsels life sciences companies on a wide range of U.S. Food & Drug Administration pre- and post-market regulatory issues.

Brigid DeCoursey Bondoc

Brigid is a food, drug, and medical device lawyer who counsels life sciences companies on a wide range of U.S. Food & Drug Administration pre- and post-market regulatory issues.

Brigid Bondoc

mofolifesciences-pharma.jpg

FDA Finalizes Guidance on Interpretation of Orphan Drug “Sameness” for Gene Therapy Products

The EU General Court’s Ruling on Pay for Delay

mofolifesciences-pharma

On September 30, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced final guidance titled “Interpreting Sameness of Gene Therapy Products under the Orp

FDA Finalizes Guidance on Interpretation of Orphan Drug “Sameness” for Gene Therapy Products

10/27/2021 Update: The adopted regulation ((EU) 2021/1873) is now officially published in the <a target="_blank" href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1873&from=EN">Journal of the EU</a>.In accordance with the vote of the Council of the European Union on October 5, 2021, the European Union has adopted a new regulation aimed at extending the term of protection provided by Community Plant Variety Rights (CPVR) under Regulation (EC) No. 2100/1994, for varieties of certain plant species (CPVR Extension Regulation), which is available here: <a target="_blank" href="https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-50-2021-INIT/en/pdf">2021/0019(COD)</a>.  The CPVR Extension Regulation enters into force 20 days after its publication in the <a target="_blank" href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/oj/direct-access.html">Official Journal of the European Union</a>.The plant species benefitting from the CPVR Extension Regulation are Asparagus officinalis, L. (asparagus), and the species groups of flower bulbs, woody small fruits, and woody ornamentals. For varieties of these species and groups of species, the CPVR term originally granted under Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94 is extended by five years, from 25 years to 30 years.On the date the CPVR Extension Regulation enters into force, this term extension will apply to both new CPVR granted on or after that date and existing CPVR for varieties of these species (according to recital (4) of the CPVR Extension Regulation). According to Article 2 of the CPVR Extension Regulation, however, the extension of the CPVR term may be reduced if national plant variety rights already existed for a plant variety before the grant of the CPVR.These particular species and species groups are the focus of the CPVR Extension Regulation because technical problems arise in the breeding of varieties of these species “due to complex genetic backgrounds or due to the slow or technically complicated reproduction” according to the recitals of the CPVR Extension Regulation. As a result, once CPVR are granted, it takes much longer for varieties of these species to become profitable for the breeder than for varieties of most other species. The CPVR Extension Regulation aims to create incentives for the breeding of varieties of these more challenging species. Extending the duration of the CPVR protection will mean that the holder of the CPVR can profit from these varieties over a longer period of time.

mofolifesciences-agtech.jpg

European Union Adopts Regulation to Extend Term of Community Plant Variety Rights in Europe for Varieties of Certain Plant Species

mofolifesciences-agtech

10/27/2021 Update: The adopted regulation ((EU) 2021/1873) is now officially published in the Journal of the EU.
In accordance with the vote of the Council of t

European Union Adopts Regulation to Extend Term of Community Plant Variety Rights in Europe for Varieties of Certain Plant Species

Skinny labels are back in focus at the White House. On September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services submitted its much-anticipated <a target="_blank" href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/Drug_Pricing_Plan_9-9-2021.pdf">report</a> to the White House Competition Counsel regarding a “Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices.” The HHS Report—issued in response to President Biden’s <a target="_blank" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/">Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy</a>—contains a range of approaches for effecting reforms aimed at reducing the price of prescription drugs. Among these proposed reforms are administrative actions that will be undertaken by the Food and Drug Administration to “address potential barriers to biosimilar and generic drug development and market entry to spur competition so that consumers can access the medicines they need at affordable prices.” HHS Report at 19.For both the biosimilar and generic drug marketing pathways, HHS emphasized the importance of labeling carve-outs—so-called “skinny” labels—under 21 U.S.C § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii) as a way to “decrease[] costs to patients and to the federal government, including reducing spending on Medicare and Medicaid.” HHS Report at 21. HHS’s emphasis appears driven in part by a recent case before the Federal Circuit, GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., addressing patent-infringement liability for generic drug manufacturers that employ skinny labeling practices. 976 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 7 F.4th 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2021); HHS Report at 21 (“Recent litigation has raised some questions about the practice of carving out patent-protected indications for generic drugs, which may discourage the use of carve-outs and thus delay the approval of some generic drugs.”).The patent at issue in GlaxoSmithKline covered the use of Coreg® (carvedilol) to treat congestive heart failure. Teva’s label for its generic carvedilol product omitted this patented indication when FDA first approved it but retained indications for two other approved uses: treatment of post-MI LVD (left ventricular dysfunction following post-myocardial infarction) and hypertension. During this time, however, Teva also marketed carvedilol as therapeutically equivalent to Coreg®, and there was evidence that post-MI LVD patients were also being treated with carvedilol for congestive heart failure. Beginning in 2011, Teva maintained the carve-out but added language elsewhere in the carvedilol label stating that it could be used to treat congestive heart failure. The jury found Teva liable for induced infringement, but the district court granted Teva judgment as a matter of law reversing the verdict. GSK appealed, and, last year, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, holding that the jury’s finding of induced infringement was supported by substantial evidence. GlaxoSmithKline, 976 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Teva subsequently requested rehearing, but the same three-judge panel <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1976.OPINION.8-5-2021_1814836.pdf">affirmed </a>its prior judgment on August 5, 2021, again holding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Teva was liable for inducing infringement.[1]The panel reiterated that its decision was limited to the particular factual circumstances presented. The panel emphasized, for example, that “GSK presented evidence that doctors read and consider labels, that Teva’s marketing materials guided doctors to the label and to its website promoting the patented use, that Teva issued press releases encouraging doctors to prescribe carvedilol for the patented use, that Teva’s own employees expected doctors to prescribe carvedilol during the partial label period for the patented uses, and expert testimony that Teva’s actions encouraged doctors to do so.” 7 F.4th at 1338. But the decision raised concerns among generic manufacturers that skinny labeling would not sufficiently shield them from liability and appears to have piqued HHS’s interest. In fact, Teva filed a <a target="_blank" href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/bltfbd4dcd9d59ab6e0/627317894d9f89297129022b/1429000-1429343-petition.pdf">petition</a> for en banc rehearing on October 7, 2021, in which it urged the full court to reject the panel’s decision because it would “throw inducement doctrine into disarray” and have a “seismic” effect on skinny-label cases.Given how recently GlaxoSmithKline was decided and the uncertainty about how the court will rule en banc, the scope of its impact on skinny labeling practices remains to be seen. The handful of opinions citing it so far have not expanded its application. See Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC, 503 F. Supp. 3d 156, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223968 (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2020) (jury could reasonably infer lack of intent to induce infringement from “removal of field restrictions from [generic] labelling”); Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54618 (D. Minn. Mar. 23, 2021) (distinguishing GlaxoSmithKline in finding insufficient evidence of intent to induce infringement by generic manufacturer); United Food & Commer. Workers Local 1776 v. Takeda Pharm. Co., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 25572 (2d. Cir. Aug. 25, 2021) (citing GlaxoSmithKline solely for general proposition that a generic manufacturer may carve out patented uses). Nevertheless, and although the Court observed that “the FDA is not the arbiter of patent infringement issues,” the HHS Report concludes that HHS is “committed to taking steps as appropriate to ensure these critical [skinny label] practices remain available for generic drugs and biosimilars.”Check back to the <a target="_blank" href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/">MoFo Life Sciences Blog</a> for updates on any specific actions HHS and/or FDA take to address skinny labeling. [1] Teva requested en banc rehearing, but the Federal Circuit interpreted its request as seeking panel rehearing. For a quick overview of this procedural quirk, see this <a target="_blank" href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/Know-Your-En-Banc-Petition-ProcessHow-An-En-Banc-Petition-In-GlaxoSmithKline-v-Teva-Led-To-A-New-Panel-Argument-Without-Apparent-En-Banc-Action.html">recent post </a>from MoFo’s Federal Circuitry blog.

collings_fitz_blog_150x150.png

collings_fitz_common_640x280.jpg

collings_fitz_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

collings_fitz_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

collings_fitz_social_600x600.jpg

Fitz Collings is an IP litigator who puts science first to develop innovative litigation strategies for life sciences and technology companies.
Fitz counsels some of the largest pharmaceutical, biotec

Fitz B. Collings

Fitz Collings

Skinny Labels Back in Focus after HHS Report on Addressing Drug Prices

Skinny labels are back in focus at the White House. On September 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services submitted its much-anticipated report

Skinny Labels Back in Focus after HHS Report on Addressing Drug Prices

As the mobile health and connected device market continues to grow at an exponential pace, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has issued a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1596364/statement_of_the_commission_on_breaches_by_health_apps_and_other_connected_devices.pdf">Policy Statement</a> that emphasizes its commitment to ensuring the protection of sensitive information collected by these apps and devices. On September 15, 2021, the FTC issued its “Statement on the Commission of Breaches by Health Apps and Other Connected Devices,” which offers guidance on the FTC’s Health Breach Notification Rule (the “Rule”), including guidance as to the Rule’s scope, and makes clear that the FTC intends to bring actions to enforce the Rule consistent with the Policy Statement.Read our <a target="_blank" href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/210929-health-breach-notification-rule-enforcement.html">client alert</a>.

crespo_melissa_blog_150x150.png

crespo_melissa_common_640x280.jpg

crespo_melissa_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

crespo_melissa_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

crespo_melissa_social_600x600.jpg

Melissa Crespo helps clients navigate a wide range of challenging privacy compliance and data security matters with a focus on the health information and the health care sector.

Melissa M. Crespo

Melissa Crespo

mofolifesciences-privacy-data-security.jpg

Health App and Device Providers Take Note: Health Breach Notification Rule Enforcement Is Coming

New York Enacts Employee Monitoring Notification Law

mofolifesciences-privacy-data-security

As the mobile health and connected device market continues to grow at an exponential pace, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has issued a Policy Statement th

Health App and Device Providers Take Note: Health Breach Notification Rule Enforcement Is Coming

Last week, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule to repeal the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) and Definition of “Reasonable and Necessary” final rule (the “Proposed Rule”), which CMS published on January 14, 2021 in the waning days of the Trump administration (the “January Final Rule”). If it were to go into effect, the January Final Rule would be effective on December 15, 2021. In the Proposed Rule, CMS stated that it is seeking comments until October 15, 2021 on this proposed repeal of the January Final Rule and on CMS’s intent to conduct future rulemaking exploring an expedited coverage pathway that provides access to innovative beneficial technologies and defining “reasonable and necessary.”<h4>Procedural History</h4>The Proposed Rule represents a shift in CMS’s thinking between the previous and current administration. Originally, the January Final Rule established an expedited four-year Medicare coverage pathway for medical devices that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designated as breakthrough devices. Coverage would begin on the date of market authorization or at a date within two years thereafter, as chosen by the device manufacturer. The goal of the rulemaking was to provide Medicare beneficiaries with faster access to innovative medical devices. The January Final Rule, which finalized a proposed rule from September 1, 2020 that contained a sixty (60) day comment period, also promulgated regulations and standards to be used in identifying what items were “reasonable and necessary” for the purposes of items furnished under Medicare Parts A and B.In January 2021, at the beginning of the Biden administration, CMS issued an Interim Final Rule, delaying the effective date of the January Final Rule by sixty (60) days, from March 2021 to May 2021. However, in response to public comments to the Interim Final Rule, CMS determined that further delay of the Final Rule was necessary and issued another final rule in May 2021, which delayed the effective date of the January Final Rule until December 15, 2021. Fast forward to the Proposed Rule, where CMS stated that, after further consideration of public comments, it has changed its position on the issue and seeks to repeal the January Final Rule.<h4>CMS’s Rationale</h4>In the Proposed Rule, CMS articulated its concerns with the January Final Rule, stating that it believes the January Final Rule is not in the best interest of Medicare beneficiaries. CMS has concerns that the January Final Rule may provide multi-year, broad, national coverage for medical devices based on breakthrough designation alone, when the breakthrough designation alone does not provide adequate evidence that such device is the reasonable and necessary treatment for a Medicare patient who has the disease or condition that the device is intended to treat or diagnose.Additionally, CMS made particular note of the fact that FDA does not require that Medicare beneficiaries be included in clinical studies that are required for market-authorization of a medical device. The Proposed Rule hints that CMS feels this fact is a potential blind spot, particularly because the Medicare population consists of older people with comorbidities, and due to the Medicare population’s general underrepresentation in underlying clinical trials. CMS believes these facts make it difficult to assess whether the breakthrough devices are reasonable and necessary, as it is unclear whether the item/service would improve a Medicare beneficiary’s health outcome.Based on the foregoing, while not abandoning the aims of the January Final Rule, CMS does not believe the January Final Rule, as currently drafted, is the best way to achieve the goals of the various stakeholders. We expect that, in exploring its options in future rulemakings, CMS will likely require manufacturers that participate in new coverage pathways, like MCIT, to produce evidence to demonstrate the benefit of the device within the Medicare population.<h4>Supporters of the Rule</h4>Supporters of the rule argued in January 2021 that FDA’s determination of a device’s safety and efficacy, allowing for the marketing of such device, should be sufficient to support Medicare’s coverage of such device. Further, in the event of a future assessment of medical device safety concerns, the January Final Rule provided for termination of MCIT coverage in instances where FDA issues a Warning Letter or if FDA revokes the market authorization for a device. In the January Final Rule, CMS articulated that it believed its policy provided a balance of ensuring rapid adoption of breakthrough devices, which, by their definition, provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis for life-threatening or debilitating conditions, while benefiting Medicare beneficiaries. Public comments to the January Final Rule echoed this sentiment, in that an MCIT coverage pathway would result in faster and more consistent access to newly authorized technologies for Medicare beneficiaries. With the potential repeal of the January Final Rule, these supporters cite patient access concerns, particularly when patients and providers have exhausted existing medical options.Supporters of the MCIT Final Rule should keep a close look on the Cures 2.0 discussion draft (“Cures 2.0”), which codifies the MCIT pathway and requires Medicare coverage for breakthrough medical devices designated by the FDA for a four-year period. Cures 2.0 is a bipartisan effort to allow CMS to catch up with the FDA. Significantly, Cures 2.0 would move away from the “reasonable and necessary” standard for coverage decisions, potentially eliminating conflicts with the FDA’s “safe and effective” standard for device approval/clearance. If passed, Cures 2.0 would bring systematic changes to the U.S. healthcare payer system and, more importantly, provide Medicare patients timely access to innovative therapies.<h4>CMS Seeking Comments</h4>As stated above, CMS is seeking comments on the Proposed Rule until October 15, 2021 regarding the following topics: (1) its proposal to repeal the January Final Rule; (2) the definition of “reasonable and necessary” as used in the Social Security Act; and (3) comments on exploring other policy options and statutory authorities for coverage of devices that would better suit the needs of Medicare beneficiaries.

healthcare.jpg

CMS Proposes to Repeal MCIT Final Rule

Is 2021 the Value-Based and Shared Savings Revolution?