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

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. 

Daralyn Durie

Daralyn Durie | Trials + Intellectual Property

xiao_janet_blog_150x150.png

xiao_janet_common_640x280.jpg

xiao_janet_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

xiao_janet_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

xiao_janet_social_600x600.jpg

Janet focuses her practice on worldwide patent procurement, patent portfolio management, and strategic planning for life sciences companies. Janet’s clients range from large multinational biopharmaceu

Janet Xiao Ph.D.

Janet focuses her practice on worldwide patent procurement, patent portfolio management, and strategic planning for life sciences companies. Janet’s clients range from large multinational biopharmaceutical companies, such as Celgene and Genentech, to emerging startup companies around the world.

Janet Xiao

Associate

Katie McNutt is an associate in Morrison Foerster’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group.

Katherine E. McNutt

Katherine McNutt

230710-pills.jpg

230710-pills

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.

Mitigating Patent Risk in Gene Therapy Development

Recent case law highlights enablement and written description challenges for genus claims.[1] Given the challenges of enforcing genus claims, the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) may become a more important tool for patentees when literal infringement is unavailable.As discussed below, the outlook for successful application of DOE to biologics remains uncertain. But with careful prosecution strategies, patentees can better preserve their DOE arguments to block design-arounds with insubstantial differences and/or those that perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way.DOE for Biologics<a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/topics/analyzing-biologics-under-doctrine-of-equivalents-prosecution-history-estoppel">Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. ITC</a> provides a rare example of successful DOE application to protein sequences.[2] There—applying the “function-way-result” (FWR) test for analyzing equivalence—the Federal Circuit concluded that a bacterial strain engineered to express a particular amino acid sequence was equivalent to a strain engineered to express a different amino sequence of a related protein.[3] In finding that the proteins functioned in substantially the same way, the court relied on the facts that the two proteins were 95% identical in primary amino acid sequence and were predicted to be 85% identical in structure.[4] Thus, when applying the FWR test to large biomolecules, sequence similarity will likely be an important consideration as it was in the Ajinomoto decision.A more recent case, Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., illustrates that relying on DOE to broaden the scope of claims reciting biological sequences (e.g., antibody sequences) can be challenging.[5] There, Teva asserted two claims reciting antibody CDR sequences and variable region sequences against Lilly under DOE. The antibodies at issue shared only 29.9% sequence similarity in the CDRs, and the heavy chain of the closest variant disclosed in Teva’s patent shared only 52.5% similarity with Lilly’s antibody.[6] In this case, the court said that application of DOE would be “a bridge too far” and would effectively read the amino acid sequence limitation out of the claims.[7] Thus, DOE arguments that essentially vitiate the sequence limitations would not be likely to succeed.It is worth noting that the court in Teva decided on the DOE issue using the “insubstantial differences” test, which the court viewed as more appropriate for evaluating equivalents in chemical compounds. Although it is clear from Teva that application of DOE to biologics likely requires “insubstantial differences” between the claimed and accused products, how much sequence identity or similarity in primary amino acid or nucleic acid sequence amounts to insubstantial difference is far from being clear. Moreover, large biological molecules having low sequence identity in primary sequences may nevertheless assume highly similar three-dimensional structures and/or functions – in such cases, would the difference be insubstantial?Despite these uncertainties and the paucity of examples successfully applying DOE to biological drugs and particularly antibodies in district court litigation or before the Federal Circuit, DOE may be an important tool in view of genus claim vulnerabilities. Patent applicants looking to apply DOE in any field must take care during prosecution to avoid estoppel, as discussed below.DOE Prosecution Strategies<ul><li>Consider initially pursuing narrow claims with a high likelihood of patentability without amendments to the claims during prosecution to avoid estoppel issues.[8] Fewer written arguments during prosecution may help reduce the risk of estoppel issues. Consider making greater use of examiner interviews to help focus amendments and arguments.</li><li>Remember that preliminary amendments can also create prosecution history estoppel.[9]</li><li>Take care to avoid new matter or written description rejections when introducing dependent claims. Dependent claim cancellations can also invoke prosecution history estoppel.[10]</li><li>The “disclosure dedication” rule may bar application of DOE for equivalents that are disclosed in the specification.[11] Rather than relying on DOE in such cases, applicants should consider pursuing a continuation application to cover specific competitor products disclosed in the specification but not initially claimed.</li></ul>[1] Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, No. 21-757, 2023 WL 3511533 (U.S. May 18, 2023).[2] See, generally, 932 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019).[3] Id. at 1356-1357.[4] Id. at 1357.[5] No. 18-CV-12029-ADB, 2022 WL 4824318, at *18 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2022).[6] Id. At *16.[7] Id. at *18.[8] Narrowing amendments made during prosecution create a rebuttable presumption that the patentee has surrendered the broader claim scope, typically referred to as “prosecution history estoppel.” This presumption is rebuttable if (1) the equivalent would have been unforeseeable at the time of the amendment; (2) the rationale underlying the amendment is only tangentially related to the equivalent in question; or (3) “there [is] some other reason suggesting that the patentee could not reasonably be expected to have described the insubstantial substitute in question.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 344 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003.[9] In Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., for example, the Federal Circuit found that a preliminary amendment limiting the claims to a 166-amino acid sequence of human erythropoietin (EPO) surrendered coverage of EPO with a 165-amino acid sequence (the mature, cleaved form of the protein). 457 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2006).[10] Consider UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Development Co., Ltd., 117 F. Supp. 3d 755 (E.D. Va. 2015). There, Yeda added dependent claims reciting “chimeric” claims, which Yeda explained encompassed humanized antibodies. Yeda canceled these dependent claims after the examiner rejected them for lack of written description. Although the independent claim reciting “monoclonal antibodies” had not been amended, the court held that the main claim could not be construed to cover humanized antibodies literally or under DOE in view of the claim cancellation in response to a rejection.[11] In Morphosys AG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., for example, disclosure of human or humanized anti-CD38 antibodies precluded the patentee from asserting that a claim limited to human antibodies also covered humanized antibodies under DOE. 358 F. Supp. 3d 354 (D. Del. 2019).

Patent Agent

Building on her research experience in cellular and molecular biology, Dr. Kelsey Roberts Kingman focuses her work on patent drafting and assisting prosecution, patent analysis, and patent due diligen

Kelsey J. Roberts Kingman Ph.D.

Kelsey Roberts Kingman

Bu Yin

mofolifesciences-health-it.jpg

Recent Digital Health-Related FDA Announcements

mofolifesciences-health-it

Recent case law highlights enablement and written description challenges for genus claims.[1] Given the challenges of enforcing genus claims, the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) may become a more important tool for patentees when literal infringement is unavailable.

Practical Strategies for Protecting Innovations Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

Life sciences patent applications often contain DNA, RNA, and amino acid sequences in the specification, claims, or figures that are required to be provided in the form of a sequence listing. The inclusion of sequences in patent applications are compulsory to satisfy patent office requirements for the written descriptions and disclosures that are necessary to obtain a patent for biologic products. The sequence listings are used by patent offices during examinations to search for identical or similar sequences when assessing novelty and nonobviousness of the invention sought to be patented. Sequence listings also become publicly available when a patent application is published, allowing the public to access the sequence information. This is especially important when reviewing the patent landscape for freedom to operate analyses for third-party patents.Starting July 1, 2022, all World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) member patent offices, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), will transition to new sequence listing procedures that will require sequence information be provided in .xml format. Since 1992 – the first year the USPTO required a separate sequence listing – the format for sequence listings has been ASCII .txt.The new format, designated WIPO standard ST.26, is intended to synchronize sequence listings among different patent offices and various international sequence repositories and therefore enable better sequence searches. Where ASCII .txt files are generally smaller in size and easier to interpret, XML files allow for more in-depth annotation via computer tags that also expedite structured information retrieval.More information about the sequence listing changes is available from WIPO and can be found <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wipo.int/standards/en/sequence/faq.html">here</a>. In order to comply with the new standards, WIPO has developed a software tool (“<a target="_blank" href="https://www.wipo.int/standards/en/sequence/?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term">WIPO Sequence</a> tool”) that both generates and validates sequence listings. The WIPO Sequence tool can also be used to convert the previous WIPO standard ASCII ST.25 listings from .txt format to .xml format. There is no transition period in the new rules, and the ability to file a sequence listing in the previous ST.25 format will disappear as of July 1, 2022.The new sequence listing standard will apply to any patent application filed on or after July 1, 2022, including any continuation or divisional application in which the original sequence listing had been prepared in the ST.25 ASCII .txt format. If an applicant desires to continue prosecution of an application family with a new patent filing, the preparation of the sequence listings must be made or converted to the new format. Practitioners and applicants should be aware of the extra time that may be needed to implement the new format. In addition, due to the format differences under the new rules, care also should be taken to ensure that a new matter is not being added when a sequence listing is converted to the new ST.26 format. The sequence listing changes may also have a profound negative impact on the ease with which patent sequences from any published application can be reviewed by the public. XML files are not instantly readable and will require a dedicated display program in order to interpret the sequence input. When downloaded, XML listings will include various coding elements, and it will be necessary to upload an XML file on the WIPO Sequence tool (or another XML viewing platform) in order to decipher the information. While WIPO has indicated that Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications will have their listings available as XML files, it is not clear how individual patent offices will publish listings under the new standards. Producing a PDF copy of the XML file will most likely present a very difficult task for any practitioner or applicant because there is no way to convert the file via the WIPO Sequence tool.These changes are significant and will impact the accessibility and ease with which applicants and practitioners alike approach the preparation and analysis of sequence listings. Life sciences patentees are encouraged to seek input from counsel to discuss the sequence listing changes in order to ensure compliance with the new rules.

Dr. Elizabeth (Liz) Newman focuses her work on patent  drafting and assisting prosecution. She also has experience in IP due diligence  inquiries, including freedom-to-operate analyses, with an emphas

Liz Newman Ph.D.

Liz Newman

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-science--blog-promo-tile.jpg

The “Big Bang” for Sequence Listings: New Requirements in Place July 1, 2022

life-science--blog-promo-tile

Life sciences patent applications often contain DNA, RNA, and amino acid sequences in the specification, claims, or figures that are required to be provided in 

The “Big Bang” for Sequence Listings: New Requirements in Place July 1, 2022

On March 14, 2022, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued two draft guidances: “<a href="https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/human-gene-therapy-products-incorporating-human-genome-editing" target="_blank">Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human Genome Editing</a> (GE)” and a <a href="https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/considerations-development-chimeric-antigen-receptor-car-t-cell-products" target="_blank">draft guidance on Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cell product development</a>. These draft guidance documents were issued on the heels of FDA’s <a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/topics/fda-clears-crispr-edited-cattle-for-market-through-abbreviated-procedure-a-first-for-food-use-animals.html" target="_blank">first low-risk determination</a> for a food animal with an intentional genomic alteration. These concurrent developments are indicative of FDA’s continued assessment of gene therapy and genome editing technology and attempts to provide guidance to innovators. Moreover, they may portend a growing focus on GE technologies at the regulatory agency. To this end, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Director Peter Marks is anticipated to publish an op-ed titled “<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14712598.2022.2060736" target="_blank">Enhancing gene therapy regulatory interactions</a>” in Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy.The draft guidance on human genome editing provides recommendations to sponsors developing human gene therapy products incorporating GE in human somatic cells and recommendations on the information that should be included in investigational new drug applications (INDs) for such products. INDs should include information on component design, manufacture and testing, and preclinical and clinical studies; the guidance also details the specific manufacturing and testing data needed for each type of genome editing product. Although the general chemistry, manufacturing, and controls recommendations for GE products are generally the same as previously described in <a href="https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/biologics-guidances/cellular-gene-therapy-guidances" target="_blank">other FDA guidance</a>, the draft guidance provides additional recommendations that are specific to human GE products. For example, FDA recommends product sponsors use a design platform that best fits their genomic target and type of intended modification. FDA further suggests sponsors “optimize the GE components to reduce the potential for off-target genome modification, to the extent possible.”Comments to the draft guidance on Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human GE may be submitted by June 14, 2022. <ul><li>Comments may be electronically submitted to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2021-D-0398" target="_blank">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2021-D-0398</a>.</li><li>Hardcopies of written comments may be sent to Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.</li></ul>

Brigid Bondoc

220324-microscope-full-disclosure-tile-promo.jpg

FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human Genome Editing

FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human Genome Editing

220324-microscope-full-disclosure-tile-promo

On March 14, 2022, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued two draft guidances: “Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Human Genome Editing (GE)” and

Patent term extension (PTE) provides additional patent term for patents related to U.S. pharmaceutical products to compensate for the effective loss of patent term caused by delay during the drug approval process by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). To be eligible for PTE, a patent must claim a drug product, a method of using a drug product, or a method of manufacturing a drug product, and PTE is only available for the first approval of an “active ingredient.”The Federal Circuit has addressed the question of what constitutes an active ingredient[1] several times in the context of small molecules. For example, claims directed to a metabolite do not cover the active ingredient,[2] enantiomers of the same compound are different active ingredients,[3] and different salts of the same compound are considered the same active ingredient for purposes of PTE.[4] Although the Federal Circuit case law on small molecules is more developed, it is not clear how the court will apply the current case law and statutory framework to biologics including cell-based therapies and gene therapies.Recent approval of a cell therapy, YESCARTA®, provides insight into considerations from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) on what constitutes the active ingredient in the context of biologics. The YESCARTA PTE application illustrates two challenges for defining the active ingredient in cell-based therapies to meet the first approval requirement.[5] One challenge is how to define the active ingredient for certain cell-based therapies, where the product differs from patient to patient. Moreover, there is the related challenge of providing a detailed enough description of the active ingredient in the PTE application to allow the USPTO to distinguish the active ingredient of the product from previously approved active ingredients.YESCARTA (Axicabtagene ciloleucel) is an immunotherapy approved to treat B-cell lymphomas. YESCARTA comprises autologous T cells (a type of immune cell that plays a crucial role in detecting and killing cancer cells) derived from an individual patient and engineered specifically to target the patient’s cancer cells. The engineered T cells comprise: (1) T cells harvested from a patient and (2) a foreign protein (i.e., a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)) specifically targeting a cell-surface protein. The T cells vary from patient to patient, but the CAR is the same for all patients. The T cells containing the CAR are responsible for the anti-tumor activity. All of this raises the question of whether the active ingredient is the T cells and/or the CAR.In the YESCARTA PTE application, applicant Cabaret Biotech Ltd. (“Cabaret”) defined the active ingredient as the engineered T cells. After reviewing the PTE application, the USPTO issued a letter to Cabaret, stating that (a) the cells could not be the active ingredient because the cells differ from patient to patient and (b) the CAR was not an active ingredient because it was not defined in the application as filed. Aside from the challenge surrounding the question “What is the active ingredient?” the USPTO also indicated that the applicant’s description of the structure of YESCARTA was insufficient. The USPTO requested that the applicant comment on whether an earlier approved antibody that targeted the same cell-surface protein was actually the first approval for the active ingredient in YESCARTA.The USPTO never squarely addressed what it considered the active ingredient of YESCARTA to be. After multiple communications between the USPTO and Cabaret, and between the USPTO and FDA, the USPTO approved the YESCARTA PTE application. The information the USPTO finally relied upon for determining that YESCARTA was eligible for PTE was the DNA sequence encoding the CAR. It appears that, based upon the differences in sequences between the YESCARTA CAR and the previously approved antibody, the USPTO determined that YESCARTA contained a new active ingredient.Interestingly, YESCARTA is not the first cell-based product with patient-to-patient variability to receive a grant of PTE. LAVIV® (Azficel-T) is an autologous cell product used for treating moderate to severe wrinkles. In its PTE application, Fibrocell Technologies, Inc. described the active ingredient of LAVIV as an autologous cellular product composed of fibroblasts suspended in a particular cell medium, and listed the active ingredient as “fibroblast cells.”[6] Although LAVIV shares the patient-to-patient variability seen in CAR T cells, the USPTO accepted this designation without further comment.The YESCARTA PTE application illustrates the challenges in applying the active ingredient analysis developed in the small molecule realm to biologics technologies. Precisely how the USPTO views the question of what constitutes an active ingredient in cell-based therapies remains an open question that will most likely be resolved by the courts. This uncertainty, however, has not impeded the grant of PTE for these cell-based therapies. Thus, patentees should not be deterred from filing PTE applications to secure an additional patent term for biologics products, but should keep these challenges in mind when drafting the description of the active ingredient in the PTE application.Follow us to stay up to date on developments regarding PTE. [1] Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines an “active ingredient” as any component that is “intended to furnish pharmacological activity or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.”[2] Glaxo Operations UK Ltd. v. Quigg, 894 F.2d 392 (Fed. Cir. 1990).[3] Ortho McNeil Pharm. v. Lupin Pharm., 603 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2010).[4] Pfizer Inc. v. Dr. Reddy Labs. Ltd., 359 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004).[5] U.S. Patent No. 7,741,465; received at the USPTO on December 14, 2017.[6] U.S. Patent No. 5,591,444; received at the USPTO on August 17, 2011.

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. 

Dr. Kate You is a member of the firm’s Patent  Group and focuses her practice on patent prosecution and counseling, including  domestic and international patent preparation and prosecution, and litiga

Yuying (Kate) You Ph.D.

Yuying (Kate) You

mofolifesciences-biotech.jpg

PATENT TERM EXTENSION FOR BIOLOGICS

Transforming the U.S. Healthcare Industry with Blockchain Technology

mofolifesciences-biotech

Patent term extension (PTE) provides additional patent term for patents related to U.S. pharmaceutical products to compensate for the effective loss of patent t

PATENT TERM EXTENSION FOR BIOLOGICS

Bethany Hills and Dan Rubin authored an article for Life Science Connect outlining the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new draft guidance in its latest effort to clarify its expectations regarding the integration of real-world data and real-world evidence into clinical research, product approvals, and post-approval monitoring of drugs.“Overall, the draft guidance aligns with other steps FDA has undertaken, including the ongoing Complex Innovative Trial Design Pilot Meeting Program, which is intended to support the goal of facilitating and advancing the use of complex adaptive, Bayesian, and other novel clinical trial designs,” the authors wrote. “Such innovative trial designs offer the prospect of greater efficiency and smaller cohorts of participants by sharing control arms and studying multiple agents in the course of the same study.”They added: “The goals of this draft guidance also appear to align with the industry guidance FDA issued for sponsors of master protocols evaluating drugs for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 in which FDA has discussed how novel study design models can help researchers “do more with less” through more judicious use of human subjects in research and greater use or re-use of existing data sources. For instance, in the COVID-19 master protocol guidance, the agency has endorsed adoption of more complex research models that either share control arms, draw more heavily on existing data, or use data iteratively to refine the study on an ongoing basis, such as via Bayesian models in which results in one stage of a study can influence what variables or interventions are examined in the next. Master protocols are research plans that govern studies designed to examine multiple therapies, multiple diseases, or both, in the context of a single research study. In its guidance on the use of master protocols, the agency has articulated the potential public health benefits that could accrue from more flexible research designs, while emphasizing that with complexity can come increased risk of confusion or error. As the FDA has indicated its receptiveness to innovative research modalities, it has also made clear that its underlying high standards for scientific rigor remain unchanged.”Read the <a href="https://www.clinicalleader.com/doc/fda-releases-draft-guidance-on-use-of-real-world-evidence-for-drug-biological-products-0001" target="_blank">full article</a>.

healthcare.jpg

FDA Releases Draft Guidance on Use of Real-World Evidence for Drug & Biological Products

Is 2021 the Value-Based and Shared Savings Revolution?

1023224308

Bethany Hills and Dan Rubin authored an article for Life Science Connect outlining the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new draft guidance in its lates

FDA Releases Draft Guidance on Use of Real-World Evidence for Drug & Biological Products

The Federal Circuit continues to tighten the standards for written description of functional claims, particularly in the biologics realm, which is putting patent applicants in the position of having to pursue narrow claims directed to specific sequences. At the same time, reliance on the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) to enforce claims to life science inventions has traditionally been limited. But times may be changing. For example, the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/190904-biologics-doctrine-of-equivalents.html" target="_blank">2019 Ajinomoto Federal Circuit</a> case makes it clear that the doctrine of equivalents can apply to sequence-based claims of life science inventions, and a recent <a href="https://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-2220.OPINION.9-17-2021_1836421.pdf" target="_blank">Federal Circuit case</a> (Jennewein Biotechnologie GMBH v. ITC, 2020-2220 (Fed. Cir. 2021)) found infringement under the DOE of claims directed to methods involved in producing milk oligosaccharides in bacteria. This suggests a possible uptick in reliance on the DOE the life sciences. Patent strategies should consider including narrower sequence-based claims with the DOE in mind, as we await further developments in the case law.<div id="_mcePaste" style="position: absolute;left: -10000px;top: 0px;width: 1px;height: 1px;overflow-x: hidden;overflow-y: hidden;">reliance on the DOE</div>

Life Sciences Patent Trends in 2022 – Doctrine of Equivalents

The Federal Circuit continues to tighten the standards for written description of functional claims, particularly in the biologics realm, which is putting paten

Life Sciences Patent Trends in 2022 – Doctrine of Equivalents

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.