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

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

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

AI + Robotics

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

USPTO Fee Changes for 2025

An InSECURE Future: Court Ruling Guts USDA Regs on Genetically Engineered Plants

Uspto Withdraws Consideration of Controversial Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice

Patent Term Extension for Medical Devices

Patent vs. Trade Secret Considerations for Cell and Gene Therapies

LinkedIN

In a decision that raises significant questions about the future oversight of genetically engineered (GE) plants in the United States, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Monday, December 2, 2024, struck down the 2020 USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) rule codified at 7 C.F.R. § 340 regarding GE plants. The court vacated APHIS’s 2020 rule, formerly known as the SECURE (Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, Efficient) rule, which had been adopted to streamline USDA oversight of plants developed using genetic engineering.Summary judgment ruling on December 2, 2024On December 2, 2024, Judge James Donato issued a summary judgment ruling in <a href="https://www.bloomberglaw.com/document/X1M9DNOB0000N" target="_blank">National Family Farm Coalition et al. v. Tom Vilsack et al.</a>, vacating a 2020 update to APHIS’s biotechnology regulations (<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/18/2020-10638/movement-of-certain-genetically-engineered-organisms" target="_blank">7 C.F.R. § 340</a>), which had exempted many GE plants from USDA regulation and streamlined the deregulation process for others. The three main exemptions under the now vacated 2020 rule are codified at 7 CFR § 340.1(b)(1)–(3) and relate to a genetic change caused by cellular repair of a targeted, single double-stranded break; a targeted single base pair substitution; and the introduction of certain types of known sequences from the plant’s gene pool, respectively.The November 2024 updates to the 2020 rule are not explicitly included in the vacaturIn late 2023, <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/231115-comment-morphing-us-biotechnology-regs" target="_blank">APHIS proposed five additional exemptions</a> to be incorporated into the 2020 rule. After a review of public comments, <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/agency-announcements/aphis-announces-final-notice-additional-exemptions-movement-organisms" target="_blank">two new exemptions were finalized, effective November 13, 2024</a>, and APHIS immediately began to inform developers about their function and effects, including at a November 14, 2024, stakeholder meeting. However, following the December 2 ruling, the new exemptions, which APHIS termed “Additional Modification 1” (AM1) and “Additional Modification 2” (AM2), are now in jeopardy.The <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotech-exemptions" target="_blank">November 2024 exemptions are defined as follows</a>:<ul><li>AM1: An indel or contiguous deletion of any size, made at a targeted location, with or without insertion of DNA if generated without using a repair template, or without insertion of DNA if generated using a repair template.</li><li>AM2: A plant with up to twelve (12) modifications, made simultaneously or sequentially, if each modification individually qualifies for exemption and occurs in a different gene.</li></ul>The parties briefed the court regarding these new exemptions prior to the summary judgment ruling. However, the court did not rule on the 2024 updates, and addressed only the 2020 final rule in its December 2 opinion. The parties have been ordered to brief the court by January 13, 2025, as to the impact of the vacatur on the November 2024 exemptions.Thus, as of December 2, the 2020 rule and its exemptions have been vacated. The new exemptions under the 2024 revisions, however, appear to remain in place, at least for now, though it is unclear whether or how APHIS can process requests related to these new exemptions given the status of the 2020 rule.What happens to plants that were approved or exempted under the 2020 rule?APHIS confirmed in a December 4, 2024, <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/program-update/aphis-acknowledges-new-court-ruling-vacating-updates-biotechnology-regulations" target="_blank">announcement</a> that “Regulatory Status Review responses, Confirmation Request responses, and active permits that USDA issued prior to December 2, 2024, remain valid.” However, it is uncertain how the ruling will impact both developers who did not engage in a voluntary confirmation of exemption or Regulatory Status Review (RSR) and were proceeding with development under a self-determined exempt status, and developers  with pending confirmation or RSR requests.The ruling does not affect applicable parallel regulatory oversight by the FDA, EPA, or other (e.g., non-APHIS) branches within the USDA.How did this happen?Judge Donato granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, a group of 29 farming and organic non-profit and public-interest groups, finding that APHIS’s adoption of the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs argued in a lawsuit filed on July 6, 2021, that the 2020 rule failed to comply with federal statutes, including the Plant Protection Act (PPA).APHIS adopted the now-vacated rule after nearly 15 years of attempts to update its regulations under part 340 of the PPA for better efficiency in regulation and better reflection of the advances made in gene editing and crop breeding. The 2020 rule introduced regulatory exemptions for certain GE plant modifications, including targeted DNA breaks repaired without a template (part 340(b)(1)), targeted single base pair substitutions (part 340(b)(2)), and insertion of a gene from the plant’s gene pool (part 340(b)(3)). The effect of the rule was to remove certain categories of GE crops from oversight by USDA‑APHIS’s Biotechnology Regulatory Services, including some types of GE plants that could be created by conventional breeding techniques and those that the agency determined do not pose a plant pest risk. This change decreased the regulatory burden and facilitated entry for smaller developers.One issue in the December 2 ruling was how APHIS dealt with “noxious weeds” in the 2020 rule. The 2020 rule did not incorporate APHIS’s authority to regulate noxious weeds into its regulation of GE crops, despite previous proposed rules by APHIS that sought to evaluate GE plants for noxious-weed risk. Citing Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, & Transportation Workers v. Federal Railroad Administration (Transp. Workers), 988 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2021), Judge Donato held that APHIS’s failure to explain the agency’s reversal of its position on additional risk assessments for noxious weeds was arbitrary and capricious.Judge Donato also took issue with the categorical exemptions, which treat the risk of conventionally bred plants as the baseline in determining the scope of regulatory oversight. His reasoning relied heavily on <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10258/chapter/1" target="_blank">a 2002 National Academy of Sciences publication</a> that concluded that risks associated with crop cultivars that could have been developed through conventional breeding “should not be assumed to be acceptable.” Despite APHIS’ position in the briefing that it had carefully assessed the risks of conventionally-bred plants over the past 30 years, Judge Donato categorized the 2020 rule as being in direct conflict with APHIS’s own experts.What’s next?The case may not be immediately appealable as the summary judgment order did not rule on all the plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs also challenged the rule under the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The court asked the parties to jointly propose a status conference date to address the remaining claims. USDA could immediately appeal if the district court certifies the summary judgment ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which allows a district court to certify for appeal an order granting summary judgment on an issue that is separate and distinct from other claims in the case. Even if such certification were to occur, expedited review by the Ninth Circuit would not be guaranteed.In the meantime, the vacatur of the 2020 rule reverts the core USDA biotechnology regulations to their pre-2020 framework. Under the pre-2020 system, APHIS regulated GE organisms based on the use of plant pests in the genetic engineering process, rather than the plant pest risks of the final edited products, to which the 2020 rule had shifted focus. Developers could petition APHIS under the old rule for a determination that a GE organism was unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, a process known as a petition for non-regulated status, or obtain an indication of non-regulated status under the legacy “Am I Regulated” (AIR) procedures.APHIS has <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/program-update/aphis-acknowledges-new-court-ruling-vacating-updates-biotechnology-regulations" target="_blank">acknowledged</a> the court ruling and plans to provide more detailed guidance to stakeholders in the coming days, but as of this writing, the USDA has not announced any intent or capacity to enforce the old framework.Of note, in March 2018, then-Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation" target="_blank">stated</a> that the USDA had no plans to regulate plants that could be developed through conventional breeding techniques, provided they were not plant pests or created using plant pests. The incoming Trump administration may seek to retain this approach. However, the vacatur of the 2020 rule’s categorical exemptions undoes much of the groundwork to automatically exempt many such plants from USDA review, assuming the legacy regulations are back in place in the interim.If APHIS moves to propose a new rule to address the court’s ruling, the process would likely be subject to customary procedural requirements, including notice and comment procedures, before finalization.This is a developing story.We are closely monitoring developments in this case and USDA’s forthcoming guidance, and will continue to share updates. Alice Carli, a law clerk in our Los Angeles office, contributed significantly to the drafting of this post. Caressa Tsai, a law clerk in our San Francisco office, also contributed to the drafting of this post.

ward_michael_blog_150x150.png

ward_michael_common_640x280.jpg

ward_michael_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ward_michael_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ward_michael_social_600x600.jpg

Michael (Mike) Ward is co-chair of the firm's Life Sciences + Healthcare Group, Patent Group, Intellectual Property Group, and Food + Agriculture Group.

Michael Ward Ph.D.

Michael (Mike) Ward is global head of the Life Sciences + Healthcare Group, head of the Patent Group, co-chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Group, and co-chair of our global Food + Agriculture Group.

Michael Ward

Drawing on his considerable experience in environmental health, William (Bill) focuses his practice on environmental and consumer protection law, with an emphasis on climate-related goals and claims, hazardous substances, mass torts, and consumer product safety.

William Tarantino

Drawing on his considerable experience in environmental health, William (Bill) focuses his practice on environmental and consumer protection law, with an emphasis on hazardous substances, mass torts, and consumer product safety.

William F. Tarantino

Krista deBoer’s practice involves the full range of environmental, climate, and green claims issues. As a partner in MoFo’s Class Actions + Mass Tort practice group, Krista represents clients in environmental and toxic tort litigation, Proposition 65 litigation, and consumer class actions 

Krista S. deBoer

Krista deBoer

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_blog_150x150.png

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_common_640x280.jpg

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

freeman-rosenzweig_liz_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Dr. Liz Freeman Rosenzweig focuses her practice on patent prosecution and intellectual property and regulatory counseling in the areas of life sciences and agricultural biotechnology, including AgTech

Liz Freeman Rosenzweig Ph.D.

Liz Freeman Rosenzweig

Patent Agent

Abby Burrus focuses her work on patent drafting and prosecution for companies in the life sciences industry. Prior to joining MoFo, Abby earned her Ph.D. in organismic and evolutionary biology from Harvard University. As a doctoral researcher, she examined the evolution, development, and molecular control of plant glands and produced interdisciplinary analyses in plant research. 

Abby C. Burrus Ph.D.

Abby Burrus

190927-dod-promulgates.jpg

New DCMA Defective Pricing Pilot Team Will Possess Audit Resolution Authority

On September 24, 2024, Morrison Foerster hosted another installment of its premier MoForum series at the firm’s San Diego office.Mayor Todd Gloria shared his vision for San Diego’s commitment to the industry. The event featured expert panel discussions on cutting-edge scientific developments, market trends, and technological innovations. Three innovative companies showcased their breakthrough technologies and business models. Renowned keynote speaker Orly Lobel highlighted the transformative power of digital technology in shaping the future of life sciences.Key Takeaways from the Panel’s DiscussionThe ScienceKaren Potter, a partner in MoFo’s Patent Strategy and Prosecution practice, moderated the Science panel. She was joined by Brendan Eckelman (Co-Founder and CSO of Inhibrx Biosciences), Michael Ports (CSO of CARGO Therapeutics), Kit Pogliano (Dean of Biological Sciences, UCSD), and Vaughn Smider (President of Applied Biomedical Science Institute). The discussion highlighted the current and emerging innovation landscape that is driving drug development in life sciences, the role of scientific collaboration in fostering innovation and how it has evolved in San Diego, and the challenges and future outlook for the life sciences sector.The MarketJim Krenn, co-chair of MoFo’s Emerging Companies + Venture Capital Group led the Market panel. He shared the stage with Kim Kamdar (Managing Partner of Medical Excellence Capital), Gavin Liu (Senior Director of Legal Strategic Transactions, Astellas), Niall O’Donnell (Managing Director of RiverVest Venture Partners), and Hunter Reed (Vice President of Alexandria Venture Investments). The panel discussed the current state of the life sciences venture market, including the ongoing challenges many companies raising capital continue to face as well as optimism for the future as interest rates trend downwards.The TechnologyErin Bosman, founder and co-head of MoFo’s Artificial Intelligence Group and chair of MoFo’s Class Actions and Mass Torts Group, led an in-depth dialogue on the Technology panel with Andrés Bratt-Leal (SVP of Research & Development, Aspen Neuroscience), Andrew Burch (President of Nucleic Acid Production, Maravai LifeSciences), Brendan Daly (Senior Innovation & Licensing Manager of San Diego State University), and Doug Komen (CFO of Vektor Medical). They explored the new technologies revolutionizing life sciences, including how these technologies are benefiting companies and customers, the pace of advancement, San Diego’s infrastructure and support of life sciences, and the current challenges posed by these new technologies.ConclusionThe MoForum program provided invaluable insights and sparked meaningful discussions in the life sciences sector. The next installment will take place in Boston in January 2025, with a special focus on women in life sciences. Stay tuned for more details.<div data-reactroot=""><img class="rich-text-embed-image" alt="241001-life-sciences-blog-1.jpeg" src="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/images/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt1ea7645406b44e8e/66fbeee5640f1cc40785775a/241001-life-sciences-blog-1.jpeg?format=auto&amp;quality=60"/></div><div data-reactroot=""><img class="rich-text-embed-image" alt="241001-life-sciences-blog-2.jpeg.jfif" src="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/images/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt107ba51d021e914b/66fbeefe809624210a7f8127/241001-life-sciences-blog-2.jpeg.jfif?format=auto&amp;quality=60"/></div>

Life Sciences MoForum 2024 | San Diego: The State of the Life Sciences Industry

Erin Bosman is chair of MoFo’s Class Actions and Mass Torts Practice Group and is a founder and co-head of the Artificial Intelligence Group. Clients value her business strategy, seeking her comprehensive counsel throughout the product life cycle, especially in high-stakes litigation and product recalls.

Erin M. Bosman

Erin Bosman is chair of MoFo’s Class Actions and Mass Torts Practice Group and is a founder and co-head of the Artificial Intelligence Group. Clients value her business strategy, seeking her comprehensive counsel throughout the product life cycle, especially in high-stakes litigation and product recalls.

Erin Bosman

Co-Chair of Emerging Companies + Venture Capital Practice

Jim has extensive experience representing private and public companies and investors in significant business transactions from formation through liquidity. His practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, venture capital financings, and emerging company counseling. His clients span a broad range of industries, with a concentration in life science and technology companies.

Jim Krenn

potter_karen_blog_150x150.png

potter_karen_common_640x280.jpg

potter_karen_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

potter_karen_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

potter_karen_social_600x600.jpg

Karen Potter is a partner in Morrison & Foerster’s Life Sciences Patent group. Her practice focuses on patent preparation, prosecution, and strategic counseling for start‑up, emerging, and established

Karen G Potter Ph.D.

Karen Potter

Life Sciences MoForum 2024 | San Diego: The State of the Life Sciences Industry

On September 24, 2024, Morrison Foerster hosted another installment of its premier MoForum series at the firm’s San Diego office.

After overhauling its <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology" target="_blank">biotechnology regulations</a> for <a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/topics/purple-tomato-is-first-genetically-engineered-plant-to-be-deregulated-through-usda-s-new-regulatory-status-review-process?_gl=1*1ko2alj*_ga*MTQxNjc1MjY0LjE3MTg3NDExMTY.*_ga_3HVRG7GH76*MTcyMTI4MjEwOC4xNy4xLjE3MjEyODIxNjQuMC4wLjA." target="_blank">plants developed</a> using <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/231115-comment-morphing-us-biotechnology-regs" target="_blank">genetic engineering</a>, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) is again reevaluating its regulatory procedures, both by opening the door to major regulatory changes for microbes developed through genetic engineering and by surveying the results of its previous changes for plant regulation.In July, APHIS requested public comment regarding modified microbe regulation and released a biotechnology regulation enforcement summary. Comments are due September 3, 2024. In June, APHIS released its biotechnology regulation impact report for 2023. These announcements, which highlight the morphing U.S. regulatory landscape for genetically engineered plants and microbes, are described in detail below.Invitation for Public Comment on Modified Microbe RegulationOn July 2, 2024, APHIS <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/program-update/aphis-invites-public-comment-request-information-options-reducing-regulations" target="_blank">announced</a> the opening of a 60-day public comment period on a Request for Information (RFI) that explores options to reduce the regulatory burden for modified microbes (available now in the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2024-0002-0001" target="_blank">Federal Register</a>). APHIS requests comments from the public regarding pathways to commercialization, including needs, ideas, and concerns, regarding possible risk-based deregulation of modified microbes and other potential regulatory and non-regulatory pathways to commercialization.Comments should be received on or before September 3, 2024, and can be submitted either electronically through the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/" target="_blank">Federal eRulemaking Portal</a> (Docket No.: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2024-0002-0001" target="_blank">APHIS-2024-0002</a>) or mailed in.APHIS BRS InvestigationsSeparately, on July 9, 2024, APHIS <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/agency-announcements/aphis-posts-investigative-enforcement-services-annual-enforcement-data-0" target="_blank">released</a> its Enforcement Services Annual Enforcement Data Report overviewing how it enforced its regulations in the 2023 fiscal year. For example, the Report summarized enforcement data regarding regulatory correspondence to parties involved in an alleged violation, charging a stipulated penalty, and referring the case to the USDA or U.S. Department of Justice for further action.Among this data, APHIS included a section on enforcement relating to its Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS), which included initiation of one case by APHIS’s Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES). This summary is notable as it is one of the first published reports of enforcement and associated penalties from the revised biotechnology regulations for plants produced through genetic engineering.APHIS Releases 2023 Impact Report – Safe Biotechnology ProductsIn June, APHIS <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/news/agency-announcements/aphis-releases-2023-impact-report" target="_blank">issued</a> its 2023 Impact Report noting its accomplishments last year. One of the areas of focus was on safe biotechnology products, through which APHIS promoted crops that help achieve climate goals and are healthier to eat, while ensuring that these products are safe to eat and grow. The full report can be found on the <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/aphis-impact-report-2023.pdf" target="_blank">USDA website</a>.The activities described in the report represent robust use of APHIS’s revised regulations for engineered plants. The report also shows that the agency is gaining momentum and becoming increasingly nimble at administering its now four-year-old revised regulations.Many if not all of these topics and more will likely be discussed live with the public at APHIS’s annual stakeholder meeting, which is scheduled for <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/meetings" target="_blank">November 14, 2024, and the agency is soliciting topics for discussion by email</a>.For further information, read our more detailed client alert. Marley Macarewich, a summer associate in Morrison Foerster’s San Francisco office, contributed significantly to this post.

Microbes, Biotech Investigations, and Impacts: Midsummer Regulatory Updates from USDA-APHIS

Brigid Bondoc

Microbes, Biotech Investigations, and Impacts: Midsummer Regulatory Updates from USDA-APHIS

In July, APHIS requested public comment regarding modified microbe regulation and released a biotechnology regulation enforcement summary. Comments are due September 3, 2024. In June, APHIS released its biotechnology regulation impact report for 2023.

Morrison Foerster and Bayer Co.Lab are partnering to offer legal programming and support to the next generation of cell and gene therapy (CGT) startups. Bayer Co.Lab is a growing global network of life science incubators that provides entrepreneurs and early-stage companies access to state-of-the-art facilities, resources, and expertise. Their U.S. flagship site, Co.Lab Cambridge, is uniquely tailored to support the needs of cutting-edge CGT startups.As a trusted partner to some of the leading innovators in the CGT sector, we are thrilled to partner with Bayer Co.Lab and their growing startup cohort. For decades, MoFo has been passionate about driving the success of pioneering life sciences companies at every stage of their evolution, from initial formation and venture capital financing through a sale or initial public offering. Our cross disciplinary team develops innovative legal, regulatory, and business strategies to help CGT companies overcome challenges along their path to market. Leveraging our market-leading life sciences capabilities in Boston and Berlin, we look forward to collaborating with Co.Lab’s residents as the organization continues to expand in these markets.On September 14, MoFo and Co.Lab kicked-off this partnership with an “End-of-Summer” networking reception at the Co.Lab Cambridge facility. The event began with welcome remarks from Fiona Mack, Vice President and Head of Bayer Co.Lab Cambridge US, and MoFo Partners Matt Karlyn and Wolfgang Schoenig. The rest of the evening featured networking with guests from across the Cambridge cell and gene therapy innovation ecosystem, including MoFo's Life Sciences group, Co-Lab residents, investors, and strategic partners. As our partnership continues to develop, we look forward to providing Co.Lab residents with additional content from our team including seminars, office hours, and special access to MoFo programming.

Wolfgang advises clients on contentious and non-contentious matters involving their most valuable intellectual property assets in the digital, high-tech, life sciences, and pharmaceutical industries.

Matt Karlyn has 23 years of experience in working with companies in the healthcare, pharmaceutical, medical device, and technology industries on a wide range of commercial life sciences, licensi

Matt Karlyn

Morrison Foerster and Bayer Co.Lab are partnering to offer legal programming and support to the next generation of cell and gene therapy (CGT) startups. Bayer Co.Lab is a growing global network of life science incubators that provides entrepreneurs and early-stage companies access to state-of-the-art facilities, resources, and expertise.

MoFo and Bayer Co.Lab Kick-Off Partnership to Advance Cell and Gene Therapy Innovation

Ascertaining the differences between prior art and claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole.<a href="#_ftn1" target="_self" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> The Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art”<a href="#_ftn2" target="_self" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a> and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. An objective analysis for determining obviousness includes considering: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the field of art, (4) and any objective indicia of non-obviousness.<a href="#_ftn3" target="_self" id="_ftnref3">[3]</a> Objective evidence of non-obviousness, or “secondary considerations,” includes evidence of commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results.<a href="#_ftn4" target="_self" id="_ftnref4">[4]</a>Pharmaceutical composition claims and method of treatment claims may often face obviousness rejections and validity challenges involving arguments that a claim feature (e.g., pharmacokinetic parameters or an effect of a therapeutic combination) is inherent. To establish inherency in an obviousness analysis, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.”<a href="#_ftn5" target="_self" id="_ftnref5">[5]</a> In general, the burden to establish inherency in the obviousness context is high.A prima facie case of obviousness for methods using a combination of known chemical compounds can be overcome if the combination yields unexpected results, such as a synergistic effect.<a href="#_ftn6" target="_self" id="_ftnref6">[6]</a> The precedential decision of In re Couvaras<a href="#_ftn7" target="_self" id="_ftnref7">[7]</a> contains cautions on the importance of distinguishing between unexpected results obtained with a combination of two known pharmaceuticals as opposed to an unexpected mechanism of action – if a claim merely recites a mechanism of action in a known use of a known compound (or a combination of compounds), the claim limitation is likely inherent and cannot be used to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, even if the mechanism of action is previously unappreciated or surprising.BackgroundInventor John Couvaras filed a patent application for combatting hypertension, with claims directed to methods of increasing the release of prostacyclin in blood vessels by co-administering two antihypertensive agents: (1) a gamma-aminobutyric acid-a (GABA-a) agonist and (2) an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB).<a href="#_ftn8" target="_self" id="_ftnref8">[8]</a> During prosecution of the application, Couvaras conceded that GABA-a agonists and ARBs “have been known as essential hypertension treatments for many, many decades.”<a href="#_ftn9" target="_self" id="_ftnref9">[9]</a> The examiner not only agreed, but also found that the results of the compounds’ administration (i.e., increasing prostacyclin release, activating uninhibited GABA-a receptors, and smooth muscle relaxation) were not patentable because they naturally flowed from the administration of known antihypertensive agents.<a href="#_ftn10" target="_self" id="_ftnref10">[10]</a>Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)Couvaras appealed to the Board, arguing that the mechanism of action recited in the claims, e.g., increasing prostacyclin release, was an unexpected result sufficient to overcome the prima facie case, and thus patentable. Unpersuaded, the Board affirmed the rejection, holding that the claimed result of increasing prostacyclin release was inherent in the obvious administration of the two known antihypertension agents.<a href="#_ftn11" target="_self" id="_ftnref11">[11]</a> In particular, the Board found that the increase in prostacyclin release was “simply a recitation of an inherent, but unknown, property of an otherwise obvious formulation” and that “identifying an inherent result of the combination of GABA and ARB compounds does not constitute a patentable invention unless there is also a showing that the newly discovered inherent result also provides an unexpected benefit.”<a href="#_ftn12" target="_self" id="_ftnref12">[12]</a>Federal CircuitCouvaras appealed to the Federal Circuit, in part arguing that because the increased prostacyclin release was unexpected it cannot be dismissed as having no patentable weight due to inherency, citing Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A., 865 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017).<a href="#_ftn13" target="_self" id="_ftnref13">[13]</a> In rejecting Couvaras’ argument, the Federal Circuit noted that Honeywell “held that ‘unexpected properties may cause what may appear to be an obvious composition to be nonobvious,’ not that the unexpected mechanisms of action must be found to make the known use of known compounds nonobvious.”<a href="#_ftn14" target="_self" id="_ftnref14">[14]</a>After addressing representative independent claim 11, the Federal Circuit noted that the dependent claims included limitations “drawn to dosing amounts and time-release formulations”<a href="#_ftn15" target="_self" id="_ftnref15">[15]</a> and that all of the claims stand or fall based on the analysis provided.<a href="#_ftn16" target="_self" id="_ftnref16">[16]</a>The court further found that Couvaras attempted to claim a mechanism of action that naturally flows from the co-administration of two known antihypertensive agents – “the two antihypertension agents exert the same ultimate result as the two separate compounds were known to effect: a decrease in blood pressure.”<a href="#_ftn17" target="_self" id="_ftnref17">[17]</a> In quoting another Federal Circuit case, the court explained that “[n]ewly discovered results of known processes directed to the same purpose are not patentable because such results are inherent.”<a href="#_ftn18" target="_self" id="_ftnref18">[18]</a> Thus, even if the mechanisms of action are unexpected, they are still results that naturally flow from the administration of a mixture of compounds, and therefore, are inherent. Unfortunately, Couvaras did not show any benefit of the combination or that the ultimate result from administering the combination is different from that of individually administering the antihypertension agents. In the absence of such an unexpected benefit or result, the mere recitation of a mechanism of action is insufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.In re Couvaras is informative in that it emphasizes the importance of secondary considerations (e.g., unexpected results) in overcoming prima facie cases of obviousness, particularly in combination therapy cases where individual pharmaceutical active ingredients have known effects that can be related to the claimed effect.Practical Tips for ProsecutionWhen addressing a prima facie case of obviousness, the arguments should be focused on actual unexpected therapeutic results.<a href="#_ftn19" target="_self" id="_ftnref19">[19]</a> Practitioners should consider adding claim limitations that recite the therapeutic result, as the Court noted that Couvaras’ success in establishing unexpected results relied on the demonstration that “the co-administration of a GABA-a agonist and an ARB provided an unexpected benefit, such as, e.g., better control of hypertension, less toxicity to patients, or the ability to use surprisingly low dosages.”<a href="#_ftn20" target="_self" id="_ftnref20">[20]</a> This would be consistent with case law where the result of a combination of known compounds is sufficiently surprising, such as when the combination results in an unexpected synergy.<a href="#_ftn21" target="_self" id="_ftnref21">[21]</a>Further, practitioners should keep in mind that “when unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art”<a href="#_ftn22" target="_self" id="_ftnref22">[22]</a> and a direct or indirect comparison is permissible.<a href="#_ftn23" target="_self" id="_ftnref23">[23]</a> Further, in order to establish unexpected results for an invention, the unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims.<a href="#_ftn24" target="_self" id="_ftnref24">[24]</a>  Arguments associated with an unappreciated mechanism of action may be useful if they are tied to an unexpected ultimate effect (which may, but does not need to be, recited in a claim), otherwise the mere recitation of the mechanism of action in the claim may be discounted as inherent. The additional limitation of the mechanism of action may also make it more difficult to prove infringement. As a result, practitioners should consider avoiding mechanism of action limitations in at least the independent claims and instead focus on establishing the benefits of the claimed subject matter.References<a href="#_ftnref1" target="_self" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> See MPEP §§ 2111-2116.01.<a href="#_ftnref2" target="_self" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007).<a href="#_ftnref3" target="_self" id="_ftn3">[3] </a>Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).<a href="#_ftnref4" target="_self" id="_ftn4">[4]</a> See MPEP § 2141(II).<a href="#_ftnref5" target="_self" id="_ftn5">[5]</a> PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014).<a href="#_ftnref6" target="_self" id="_ftn6">[6]</a> Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA, 748 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014).<a href="#_ftnref7" target="_self" id="_ftn7">[7]</a> In re Couvaras, No. 2022-1489, 2023 WL 3984753 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023).<a href="#_ftnref8" target="_self" id="_ftn8">[8]</a> See In re Couvaras, 2023 WL 3984753, at *1.<a href="#_ftnref9" target="_self" id="_ftn9">[9]</a> See id., at *3 (quoting J.A. at 998).<a href="#_ftnref10" target="_self" id="_ftn10">[10]</a> See id. (quoting J.A. at 1011-18).<a href="#_ftnref11" target="_self" id="_ftn11">[11]</a> In re: John L. Couvaras, No. 2022-001037, 2021 WL 6124743, at *3-4 and *7 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2021) (“Decision”).<a href="#_ftnref12" target="_self" id="_ftn12">[12]</a> See Decision, at *14.<a href="#_ftnref13" target="_self" id="_ftn13">[13]</a> See In re Couvaras, 2023 WL 3984753, at *8 (citing Honeywell International Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A., 865 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017).<a href="#_ftnref14" target="_self" id="_ftn14">[14]</a> See id. (citing Honeywell International Inc., 865 F.3d at 1355).<a href="#_ftnref15" target="_self" id="_ftn15">[15]</a> See In re Couvaras, 2023 WL 3984753, at *3 (quoting J.A. at 982-87).<a href="#_ftnref16" target="_self" id="_ftn16">[16]</a> See id.<a href="#_ftnref17" target="_self" id="_ftn17">[17]</a> See id., at *8.<a href="#_ftnref18" target="_self" id="_ftn18">[18]</a> See id. (quoting In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). See also In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1070-71 (Fed. Cir. 2011).<a href="#_ftnref19" target="_self" id="_ftn19">[19]</a> Application of Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 537 (C.C.P.A. 1967) (explaining that “[e]xpected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of unobviousness thereof”).<a href="#_ftnref20" target="_self" id="_ftn20">[20]</a> See In re Couvaras, 2023 WL 3984753, at *9.<a href="#_ftnref21" target="_self" id="_ftn21">[21]</a> See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, 748 F.3d at 1354.<a href="#_ftnref22" target="_self" id="_ftn22">[22] </a>In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991).<a href="#_ftnref23" target="_self" id="_ftn23">[23] </a>In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 316 (C.C.P.A. 1979). See also In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 869 (C.C.P.A. 1978) and In re Blondel, 499 F.2d 1311, 1317 (C.C.P.A. 1974).<a href="#_ftnref24" target="_self" id="_ftn24">[24] </a>In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (C.C.P.A. 1980).

Obviousness in Drug Combinations – Unexpected Results Vs. Unexpected Mechanisms of Action

Of Counsel

Mark McBriar

yin_bu_blog_150x150.png

yin_bu_common_640x280.jpg

yin_bu_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

yin_bu_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

yin_bu_social_600x600.jpg

Dr. Bu Yin has nearly 10 years of experience in life sciences patent application drafting, global portfolio management, and strategic counseling. Dr. Yin frequently counsels on issues relating to pate

Bu Yin Ph.D.

Bu Yin

230124-fda-covid.jpg

Obviousness in Drug Combinations – Unexpected Results Vs. Unexpected Mechanisms of Action

230124-fda-covid

Ascertaining the differences between prior art and claims at issue requires interpreting the claim language and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole.

This article was first published by IAM on June 2, 2023 in its <a href="https://www.iam-media.com/report/special-reports/q2-2023/article/mitigating-patent-risk-in-gene-therapy-development" target="_blank">Special Report 2023 Q2: New Frontiers of Pharma and Biotech IP Strategy</a>.Daralyn Durie, Janet Xiao and Katherine McNutt of Morrison Foerster explore strategies to reduce the threat of infringement liability in the complex environment of gene therapy development.The Hatch-Waxman Act created a statutory safe harbor, codified in Section 271(e)(1), Chapter 35 of the US Code, which immunizes drug developers from patent infringement liability for certain activities related to developing and submitting information to regulators. For example, the safe harbor immunizes a generic drug manufacturer from patent infringement liability for using a branded company’s patented drug product to develop and submit information to the FDA as part of the approval process for that generic drug.Recent cases have limited its scope such that it may not protect the use of research tools or intermediate products in the development and submission of information to the FDA for approval of gene therapies. In view of this, gene therapy developers should consider other ways to mitigate exposure to patent infringement liability occasioned by the FDA approval process.Overview of the safe harborThe safe harbor was enacted as part of a response to two perceived distortions of patent terms for products subject to FDA approval. These were based on the interaction of FDA premarket approval requirements and limitations on patent term.First, patent holders effectively lost a portion of their patent term for FDA-approved products “[b]ecause patent applications were filed early in the regulatory process, but market entry was delayed pending regulatory review” (Proveris Sci Corp v. Innovasystems Inc.; 536 F3d 1256, 1265; Fed Cir, 2008).Second, those same patent holders gained a de facto PTE after their patents had expired because the patents delayed competitors’ ability to develop information for FDA approval of their competing products. That is, competitors could be liable for patent infringement if they used the patented, FDA-approved products to submit information to the FDA for approval of their competing products before the patents on the FDA-approved products had expired. To address the first perceived distortion, Congress enacted Section 156 (f)(1), Chapter 35 of the US Code, which provides for PTE to compensate for regulatory delays associated with obtaining FDA approval of a drug product, medical device, food additive or color additive subject to regulation under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The safe harbor was intended to address the second perceived distortion by immunizing the use of patented products subject to FDA premarket approval in FDA submissions seeking approval for competing products.In relevant part, Section 271(e)(1) provides:It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention . . . solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products.Safe harbor in the courtsAlthough Section 271(e)(1) refers broadly to “a patented invention”, courts have interpreted this as limited by the policy considerations and perceived patent-term distortions that motivated the enactment of the statute. Specifically, they have limited “a patented invention” to a patented product subject to premarket FDA approval. This reflects “a ‘perfect’ product fit” between Sections 271(e)(1) and 156, the provisions that Congress enacted to address the “roughly offsetting … dual distorting effects of regulatory approval requirements in this entire area” (Eli Lilly & Co v. Medtronic Inc.; 496 US 661, 672 and 674; 1990). When a patented product does not require FDA pre-market approval, there is no de facto extension of the patent term – competitors may start using that patented product commercially immediately upon expiration of the patent – so the second perceived distortion that the safe harbor was designed to address does not occur. Applying that rationale, the Federal Circuit held in Proveris that Section 271(e)(1) did not immunize the use of a patented device from infringement when the device was “used in the development of FDA regulatory submissions but is not itself subject to the FDA premarket approval process” (536 F3d at 1265).In the gene therapy context, one court, applying Proveris, has held that using an intermediate patented product not subject to FDA approval to develop a gene therapy does not fall within the safe harbor. There, the Delaware district court concluded, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, that gene therapy developer Sarepta had not demonstrated that the safe harbor applied to its use of patented cultured host cells (an “intermediate patented product”) to develop gene therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (REGENXBIO Inc v. Sarepta Therapeutics Inc.; 20-1226-RGA, 2022 WL 609141, at 1; D Del, 4 January 2022).Relying on Proveris, the court concluded that “a patented product that is not subject to FDA premarket approval is not a ‘patented invention’ under Section 271(e)(1)” (Id at 4). The court rejected Sarepta’s argument that the safe harbor should apply because its use of the patented cultured host cells “w[as] solely related to the development and future submission of a Biologics License Application to the FDA” (Id at 2). As Sarepta was “using the patented cells to develop its own patentable product” rather than “using the patented cultured host cells to obtain FDA approval to introduce generic cultured host cells”, the court found that the rationale underlying the safe harbor did not apply; Sarepta could begin using the patented cultured host cells immediately after the asserted patent expired (Id at 4). The logic was that the patentee would not receive a de facto PTE that the safe harbor was intended to address, notwithstanding that Sarepta’s inability to freely use the patented cultured host cells might delay the development and submission of information to the FDA for approval of its gene therapy.Sarepta is consistent with decisions of some other courts concluding that the use of patented ‘research tools’, themselves not subject to FDA approval, does not trigger the protections of the safe harbor, even when those tools are used to develop information for purposes of regulatory approval of another product. Research tools include “tools that scientists use in the laboratory including cell lines, monoclonal antibodies, reagents, animal models, growth factors, combinatorial chemistry and DNA libraries, clones and cloning tools (such as PCR), methods, laboratory equipment and machines” (64 Fed Reg 72,090, 72092, footnote 1; 23 December 1999). For example, courts have found that the safe harbor did not cover the use of a patented fluorescent protein and certain G-protein coupled receptors to develop information for regulatory approval of other products (see Allele Biotech & Pharms Inc v. Pfizer Inc.; 20-cv-01958-H-AGS, 2021 WL 1749903, at 7; SD Cal, 4 May 2021- denying motion to dismiss based on safe harbor defense when plaintiff’s complaint alleged that fluorescent protein was used as a research tool and that it was not subject to FDA review and approval; see also PSN Ill LLC v. Abbott Lab’ys; 09 C 5879, 2011 WL 444825, at 1 and 6; ND Ill, 20 September 2011 - denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on safe harbor defense when defendants used patented G-protein coupled receptors that did not require FDA approval to screen potential drug candidates and “develop their own patentable product”).At least one court has viewed these issues differently. In that case, the defendants used patented polypeptide markers to measure the molecular weight characteristics of their generic drug products to demonstrate to the FDA that their generic products’ active pharmaceutical ingredient was the same as the active pharmaceutical ingredient in the plaintiff’s branded drug (Teva Pharms USA Inc v. Sandoz Inc.; 09 Civ 10112(KBF), 2013 WL 3732867, at 1; SD NY, 16 July 2013). The court noted that “[t]he claimed markers are not themselves drug products, nor do they need approval from the FDA” (Id at 2). In reaching its conclusion that the safe harbor nonetheless covered the use of the polypeptide markers, Teva relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesci I Ltd for the proposition that “the Supreme Court held that use of patented peptides to conduct research not ultimately submitted to the FDA, but which furthered research and led to the development of testing for another drug, fell within the safe harbor” (Id at 6; citing Merck, 545 US 193, 206-07; 2005). In Merck, there was no dispute that the asserted patents covered the cyclic RGD polypeptides developed by the petitioner, and the “[r]espondents ha[d] never argued that the RGD peptides were used at Scripps as research tools” (Merck, 545 US 193, 201-02, 205, footnote 7; 2005). Some of the patented peptides at issue in Merck were used for research on other drug candidates, and one of the patented peptides was ultimately submitted for FDA approval in an investigational new drug application (Id at 197-99).Considerations for gene therapy developersGiven that some courts considering the issue have concluded that the safe harbor does not protect the use of research tools or intermediate products not subject to FDA approval to generate information for FDA approval of other products, gene therapy developers may face potentially significant patent infringement liability. For example, using patented research tools or intermediate products, such as host cells used to culture viral vectors that subsequently deliver gene therapies, may lead to patent infringement suits against gene therapy developers. Gene therapy developers should therefore be mindful of potential FTO risks with regard to patents covering research tools or intermediate products, even though those patents may expire before the projected commercialization date of their gene therapies. Defensively, these decisions counsel in favor of considering risk mitigation strategies, including conducting due diligence to determine whether third-party patents cover any intermediate products used in developing or manufacturing their gene therapies.Defensively, patent exhaustion may provide an alternative to the safe harbor for avoiding patent infringement liability based on the use of patented intermediate products not subject to FDA approval. When a patentee authorizes the sale of an item that substantially embodies the patentee’s patent claims, all patent rights to that item are exhausted, and the patentee loses the ability to bring an infringement suit related to that item (Quanta Comput Inc v. LG Elecs Inc.; 553 US 617, 638; 2008). Assuming that those intermediate products are patented, gene therapy developers should investigate whether any third-party supplier sells the intermediate product and whether they have a license from the patentee. To the extent that a gene therapy developer purchases patented products needed to develop gene therapies from a patentee or a licensee of the patent holder, patent exhaustion may be available as an affirmative defense, assuming the licensee has permission from the patent holder to sell the patented product to the developer (see, for example, PSN, 2011 WL 444825, at 9-11 - holding, based on language of license agreements, that patent exhaustion applied to receptors purchased from licensees after concluding that use of receptors was not covered by safe harbor).Gene therapy developers should consider whether to conduct due diligence to verify that their suppliers have such permission. The relevant license agreements may be confidential, making them unavailable to verify that the licensee has the requisite permission to sell the patented product. In that case, a gene therapy developer may be able to seek indemnification against patent infringement liability from the intermediate product supplier. Patent exhaustion may not provide a defense with regard to any subsequent cloning or manufacture of intermediate products by the developer.Once litigation has commenced, gene therapy developers may also be able to limit available damages for the use of an intermediate product by asserting that the patentee or its licensees failed to mark the patented intermediate product. (eg, Id at 12). To the extent that the patentee or its licensees manufacture the patented product and fail to mark that product, damages for infringement may be contained to the period beginning when the accused infringer had actual notice of the accused infringement (35 USC §287(a)). Absent a demand letter, a defendant may not receive actual notice until the complaint is served.From an offensive perspective, gene therapy developers should consider maintaining a broad patent portfolio with regard to innovations related to gene therapies and seeking PTE for patents covering their approved products whenever it is available. Obtaining PTE for patents on approved products may compensate for any regulatory delay in obtaining FDA approval. However, any PTE may not compensate for any time during which a third-party patent prevented the developer from submitting information to the FDA during the approval process.From a portfolio and enforcement perspective, gene therapy developers should consider drafting a varied set of patent claims to cover their gene therapies under development, including patents directed to newly developed research tools or intermediate products that do not require FDA approval. Having patents on research tools or intermediate products may position developers to manage competition and receive passive licensing revenue. Given the safe harbor defense, patents covering research tools or intermediate products that do not require FDA approval may hold significant value as against another developer working on a gene therapy to treat the same condition.Close attention to applicable license agreements and transactions involving intermediate patented products will benefit developers both offensively and defensively. From an offensive perspective, placing limitations on the scope of sales that licensees can make may limit the applicability of an exhaustion defense in subsequent offensive litigation; sales by the licensee that exceed the scope of the license may be found to be unauthorized, such that patent exhaustion would not apply. Defensively, it would behoove gene therapy developers to ensure that any applicable licenses provide, at every step in the chain from the patentee to the developer, all rights necessary for the development and manufacture of gene therapies. Patent exhaustion may not provide a defense if a developer obtains intermediate patented products through a sub-license rather than a purchase and later exceeds the scope of the rights to the patented product granted by the applicable sub-license. Seeking indemnification from suppliers of intermediate products may help gene therapy developers to mitigate the patent risk associated with those intermediate patented products. Indemnification may also assist gene therapy developers in mitigating potential risks related to non-patent claims, but such claims fall beyond the scope of this article.Mitigating risk in the futureThe implementation of statutory or regulatory reform may facilitate gene therapy development. Possibilities range from creating a new set of rules specific to gene therapies to implementing a compulsory licensing scheme for research tools or intermediate products akin to the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing scheme for SEPs. Unless and until that happens, gene therapy developers should take care to scrutinize any applicable licenses, pursue patents covering research tools or intermediate products and gene therapy products, preserve defenses to patent infringement, such as patent exhaustion, and preserve arguments to limit damages.

Daralyn Durie is among the top trial lawyers in the country, acting as go-to trial counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants. 