Justia Drugs & Biotech Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Bayer Corporation and related entities (collectively, Bayer) directing the circuit court to dismiss nonresident Plaintiffs’ claims in a petition alleging personal injures from Essure, a female contraceptive device Bayer manufactures and distributes. Specifically, Bayer alleged that Missouri had no specific personal jurisdiction over eighty-five out of ninety-two plaintiffs, who were nonresidents of Missouri and did not allege that their injury occurred in Missouri. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s order overruling Bayer’s motion to dismiss, holding that the petition did not assert any recognized basis for personal jurisdiction over Bayer with respect to nonresident Plaintiffs. View "State ex rel. Bayer Corp. v. Honorable Joan L. Moriarty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order granting Respondent’s petition for judicial review filed under Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B, the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act (APA), holding that the application process provided by Nev. Rev. Stat. 453A.322 does not constitute a contested case as defined by Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B.032, and therefore, the district court did not have authority to grant APA-based relief.Respondent petitioned for judicial review of the Nevada Department of Health and Human Service’s decision not to issue it a Las Vegas registration certificate authorizing it to operate a medical marijuana dispensary. Respondent’s petition was based exclusively on the Nevada APA. The Department moved to dismiss, arguing that the APA only affords judicial review in contested cases, which the marijuana dispensary application process does not involve. The district court granted judicial review and directed the Department to reevaluate Respondent’s application. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court, holding that the APA did not afford Respondent the right of review it sought. View "State, Department of Health & Human Services v. Samantha Inc." on Justia Law

A jury found William Scully guilty of mail and wire fraud and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States through the introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, receipt of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce and delivery thereof for pay, introduction of unapproved drugs into interstate commerce, and unlicensed wholesale distribution of prescription drugs. He was sentenced principally to 60 months in prison. The main issue on appeal was whether the district court properly excluded evidence relating to Scully’s advice-of-counsel defense. Because the Second Circuit found that the evidence was admissible and its exclusion was not harmless error, it vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Scully" on Justia Law

Sanofi’s patents describe and claim compositions and uses of the cardiovascular (antiarrhythmic) drug dronedarone. The 800 patent, which expires in 2019, claims pharmaceutical compositions containing dronedarone. The 167 patent, which expires in 2029, claims methods of reducing hospitalization by administering dronedarone to patients having specified characteristics. In 2009, Sanofii received New Drug Application approval for 400 mg tablets of dronedarone, sold as Multaq®. Both patents are listed in the FDA publication Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book) as patents claiming either Multaq® or a method of using Multaq®. Defendants, hoping to market generic versions of Multaq®, filed abbreviated new drug applications with the FDA, certifying under 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), their beliefs that both patents were invalid and/or that the manufacture, use, and sale of the proposed generic drugs would not infringe either patent. Sanofi sued for infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A). The district court ruled, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that as to the 167 patent, Sanofi proved that sale of the proposed generic drugs, with the proposed labels, would induce physicians to infringe, and defendants did not prove that any asserted claims were invalid for obviousness. As to the 800 patent, the courts rejected the non-infringement argument. View "Sanofi v. Watson Laboratories Inc." on Justia Law

To seek redress for an opioid epidemic, characterized by the Court of Appeal as having placed a financial strain on state and local governments dealing with the epidemic’s health and safety consequences, two California counties sued (the California Action) various pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, including the appellants in this matter, Actavis, Inc., Actavis LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., and Watson Pharma, Inc. (collectively, “Watson”). The California Action alleged Watson engaged in a “common, sophisticated, and highly deceptive marketing campaign” designed to expand the market and increase sales of opioid products by promoting them for treating long-term chronic, nonacute, and noncancer pain - a purpose for which Watson allegedly knew its opioid products were not suited. The City of Chicago brought a lawsuit in Illinois (the Chicago Action) making essentially the same allegations. The issue presented by this appeal was whether there was insurance coverage for Watson based on the allegations made in the California Action and the Chicago Action. Specifically, the issue was whether the Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers Insurance) and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) owe Watson a duty to defend those lawsuits pursuant to commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies issued to Watson. Travelers denied Watson’s demand for a defense and brought this lawsuit to obtain a declaration that Travelers had no duty to defend or indemnify. The trial court, following a bench trial based on stipulated facts, found that Travelers had no duty to defend because the injuries alleged were not the result of an accident within the meaning of the insurance policies and the claims alleged fell within a policy exclusion for the insured’s products and for warranties and representations made about those products. The California Court of Appeal concluded Travelers had no duty to defend Watson under the policies and affirmed. View "The Traveler's Property Casualty Company of America v. Actavis, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, by and through her mother and next friend, was one of nineteen minor plaintiffs who alleged that they sustained birth defects as a result of their mothers’ use of the prescription medication Zoloft. The Mass Litigation Panel granted summary judgment to Respondents - Pfizer, Inc., Roerig, a division of Pfizer, Inc., and Greenstone, LLC - upon concluding that there existed no genuine issue of material fact and that Pfizer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Panel correctly concluded that (1) Michigan law governed Petitioner’s claims; (2) federal law operated to preempt the exception to Michigan’s failure to warn immunity where Zoloft has received FDA approval; (3) no genuine issues of material fact remained in the case; and (4) Respondents were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "M.M. v. Pfizer, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2003, the FDA granted Bayer approval to market vardenafil hydrochloride trihydrate to treat erectile dysfunction (ED) under the name Levitra. Vardenafil belongs to a class of ED drugs called phosphodiesterase inhibitors. When the FDA approved Levitra, two other phosphodiesterase inhibitors were already on the market: Pfizer launched Viagra in 1998, and Eli Lilly launched Cialis in 2003. Each is formulated as immediate-release tablets that are swallowed whole. Bayer’s 950 patent issued in 2013, claiming priority to 2005; it is directed to a formulation of vardenafil as “an uncoated tablet which disintegrates rapidly in the mouth,” vardenafil ODT, which Bayer markets as Staxyn. Watson filed an FDA Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to market a generic version of Staxyn. Bayer alleged infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding Watson failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that two claims would have been obvious, 35 U.S.C. 103. The district court clearly erred in finding a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to use the claim elements to formulate an ED drug as a fast-dissolving tablet; the claims would have been obvious. View "Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Laboratories, Inc." on Justia Law

Abilify is approved to treat schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, major depressive disorder and irritability associated with autism. There are no disapproved treatments for elderly patients, but the FDA has included a warning since 2007 that Abilify is associated with increased mortality in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis. Relators, former BMS employees, alleged in a qui tam suit that BMS and Otsuka engaged in a scheme to encourage providers to prescribe Abilify for unapproved (off-label) uses and improperly induced providers to prescribe Abilify in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. Nearly identical allegations were leveled against the companies years earlier. In 2007-2008, the companies each entered into an Agreement as part of a settlement of qui tam actions concerning improper promotion of Abilify. Relators allege that, despite those agreements, the companies continued to promote Abilify off-label and offer kickbacks, causing claims for reimbursement for the drug to be submitted to the government, in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729. The district court dismissed in part. The Sixth Circuit affirmed; the complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s requirement that relators adequately allege the entire chain to fairly show defendants caused false claims to be filed. As sales representatives, relators did not have personal knowledge of provider’s billing practices.The alleged plan was to increase Abilify prescriptions through improper promotion, which does not amount to conspiracy to violate the FCA. View "Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co." on Justia Law

Abilify is approved to treat schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, major depressive disorder and irritability associated with autism. There are no disapproved treatments for elderly patients, but the FDA has included a warning since 2007 that Abilify is associated with increased mortality in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis. Relators, former BMS employees, alleged in a qui tam suit that BMS and Otsuka engaged in a scheme to encourage providers to prescribe Abilify for unapproved (off-label) uses and improperly induced providers to prescribe Abilify in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. Nearly identical allegations were leveled against the companies years earlier. In 2007-2008, the companies each entered into an Agreement as part of a settlement of qui tam actions concerning improper promotion of Abilify. Relators allege that, despite those agreements, the companies continued to promote Abilify off-label and offer kickbacks, causing claims for reimbursement for the drug to be submitted to the government, in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729. The district court dismissed in part. The Sixth Circuit affirmed; the complaint did not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s requirement that relators adequately allege the entire chain to fairly show defendants caused false claims to be filed. As sales representatives, relators did not have personal knowledge of provider’s billing practices.The alleged plan was to increase Abilify prescriptions through improper promotion, which does not amount to conspiracy to violate the FCA. View "Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co." on Justia Law

Merck owns the 150 patent, which is directed to a process for preparing a stable formulation of ertapenem, an antibiotic compound, and claims a manufacturing process for a final formulation of the antibiotic that purportedly minimizes both dimerization and hydrolysis degradation pathways. Hospira notified Merck that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application, seeking FDA approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of generic versions of Merck’s Invanz® product, the principal component of which is the carbon dioxide adduct of ertapenem. Merck sued Hospira for infringement of two patents—the 150 patent and the 323 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding that certain claims of the 150 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103, for obviousness. It was reasonable for the district court to deduce from the evidence that the order and detail of the steps, if not already known, would have been discovered by routine experimentation while implementing known principles. View "Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc." on Justia Law