ARTICLE
22 March 2005

Hatch-Waxman Continues to Challenge

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
The Hatch-Waxman Act (HWA) defines a package of market exclusivities intended both to spur innovators and to incentivize commercialization of less costly generic drugs.
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences

The Hatch-Waxman Act (HWA) defines a package of market exclusivities intended both to spur innovators and to incentivize commercialization of less costly generic drugs. Although 20 years old, HWA continues to spawn issues involving huge stakes. Corporate counsel advising drug/ biotech companies should be aware of cutting-edge HWA issues, which can potentially affect acquisitions, licensing arrangements and product development.

Illustrative of creative HWA lawyering is the "authorized generics" route, whereby an innovator starts its own generic company before other generics can enter the market, in order to capture early market share. This can have an enormous financial impact on a generic challenger poised to enter the market with a 180-day exclusivity, ceded by HWA to the first entrant.

On the generics side, the tactic of "multidistrict" litigation transfers may reduce delays in HWA-related litigation. Also, generics companies are increasingly willing to launch "at risk," after a 30-month stay imposed by HWA on FDA approval, even if the related litigation is unresolved.

There is no regulatory scheme, à la Hatch- Waxman, for drugs produced biologically ("biologics"). But Congress is under pressure to create a "son of Hatch-Waxman" for biologics, given their high cost and the billions of dollars in annual sales that go off-patent in this decade. How biologics should be handled turns on whether a "follow-on" biologic must be identical or only "similar" (and, if so, how similar) to a previously approved, branded biologic. A requirement for identity will discourage follow-on biologics manufacturing.

Understanding these issues will help corporate counsel to identify potential strategies early.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More