Proving access to and use of trade secrets are core elements in a trade secrets misappropriation case. Recent rulings in a trade secrets action filed by Allergan against its competitor Revance Therapeutics (“Revance”) provide helpful guidance on what is sufficient to plead these elements. There, the court explained what facts are—and are not—sufficient to infer access to and use of trade secrets allegedly misappropriated. The court also explained how examining the similarity of design may help in this analysis. Finally, the court clarified that the ability to reverse engineer alone may not always preclude trade secret protection.
With Hollywood celebrities speaking out both in favor of and against the use of drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy for weight loss, it was only a matter of time before demand outpaced supply. Although most might believe that increased demand is a good problem to have, a recent case involving Ozempic shows that pharmaceutical companies with popular drugs might face increased competition, without the ability to obtain legal remedies against their competitors.
A team of researchers from Yale University, the University of Maryland and the University of Wisconsin-Madison just published a study on a durable, biodegradable plastic alternative made 100% of wood. This study is just one example of the advent of a new generation of biobased plastics or bioplastics, a term broadly referring to products made from organic matter that have the same properties as “ordinary” plastic. The attractiveness of bioplastics is due to their potential to meet environmental as well as economic goals. According to current estimates, the bioplastics market size is expected to reach at least USD $20.0 billion by 2026.
When a pharmaceutical company withdraws a product from the market, the basis for the withdrawal can affect whether a competitor can commercialize a generic version of that product. A generic cannot be approved if, in the FDA’s view, the product was withdrawn for “safety and effectiveness” reasons.
But how does the FDA reach that conclusion? A newly filed case may shed some light on the Agency’s decision-making process.
The Orphan Drug Act provides two mechanisms by which a drug can receive an orphan drug designation for a “rare” disease: (1) if it affects less than 200,000 persons in the United States, or (2) if it “affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost . . . will be recovered from sales in the United States of such drug.” See 21 U.S.C. § 360bb(a)(2). H.R. 4712 (the “Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act”), which passed the House on November 17, seeks to amend the latter “cost recovery” pathway in order to address what has been called a “loophole” in the Act.
The prospect of genetic engineering using CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) and CRISPR-associated nucleases (Cas) has long been hailed as a “revolutionary” development in medicine.
This technology is rapidly advancing, and several CRISPR/Cas-based drugs have entered clinical trials over the past several years. One kind of product in clinical trials is CRISPR-modified cells, such as CTX001 (CRISPR-Cas9-modified autologous hematopoietic stem cells), currently under study for the treatment of b-thalassemia and severe sickle cell anemia. Another CRISPR-based product, AGN-151587, is injected into the eye with the goal of eliminating a genetic mutation in patients with Leber congenital amaurosis 10, a leading cause of childhood blindness. In parallel, others are working to harness the CRISPR/Cas system to develop drugs for rare diseases, including bespoke therapies tailored to an individual patient’s needs.
“Orphan” drug exclusivity, which is intended to reward drug companies’ investment in the development of certain drugs, might soon be harder to get—and keep.
Over the past several months, Congress introduced two similar bills to amend a “loophole” in the Orphan Drug Act (ODA). On October 17, 2019, a bipartisan group of House members introduced H.R. 4712 (“Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act”) (“the House bill”). On February 11, 2020, bipartisan Senators sponsored a companion bill bearing the same title (S. 3271) (“the Senate bill”). Consistent with recent political interest in curbing high drug prices, the proposed legislation is intended to limit the availability of orphan drug exclusivity for certain drugs, with the goal of thereby promoting competition.
Chambers and Partners released its first ever Pharmaceutical Advertising 2018 guide, authored by Proskauer partners Lawrence Weinstein and Alexander Kaplan with assistance from several litigation associates. The guide provides a comprehensive look at the laws and regulations governing pharmaceutical advertising in various markets, and provides important developments in the most…