One of the latest state laws impacting prescription drug prices is a per se unconstitutional taking, a U.S. district judge said last week, but he refused to grant a preliminary injunction to shield manufacturers from the effects of Colorado’s new law while Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.’s constitutional challenge moves through the courts.
Wading into the “muddied waters” of rounding the numbers used in a range claimed in two drug patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused to set a “bright line rule.” Instead, it tossed a lower court win for Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and sent the case back to that court with instructions to consider the extrinsic evidence and its impact on the claim construction.
Even as the court challenges continue, the first round of U.S. government price negotiations for selected Medicare Part D drugs officially began Oct. 1 with manufacturers of those drugs having to sign agreements to participate in the process. While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had yet to disclose, as of press time, how many manufacturers signed the negotiation agreements, all the companies with selected drugs reportedly had indicated they would sign by the deadline even as they pursue litigation.
The queue of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) prescription drug price negotiations continues to grow. Novartis AG is the latest drug company, but probably not the last, to join the line. It filed its challenge in federal court in New Jersey Sept. 1, a few days after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services included the company’s heart failure drug, Entresto (sacubitril and valsartan), on its list of the 10 drugs subject to the first round of IRA negotiations.
Biontech SE and Pfizer Inc. filed a petition with the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board for an inter partes review against Moderna Inc., the latest move in an ongoing patent battle over the mRNA technology used to develop COVID-19 vaccines.
As a U.S. appeals court ruling that restores the original restrictions the FDA imposed on the abortion drug mifepristone in 2000 heads to the Supreme Court for what will likely be full argument, the Biden administration continues to insist that the courts have no business overriding the FDA’s “scientific, evidence-based decisions.” Commenting on the Aug. 16 opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reinstated the original use restrictions, Vice President Kamala Harris said, “It endangers our entire system of drug approval and regulation by undermining the independent, expert judgment of the FDA.”
How long does it take for a U.S.-based biopharma company to complete a bankruptcy? In the case of privately held Purdue Pharma LP, the answer is likely five years or longer, depending on when the Supreme Court rules on the matter and whether it orders a do-over. The Supreme Court is the next chapter in the court saga that began in 2019 when the Stamford, Conn.-based company filed for bankruptcy in its first step toward reorganizing as a public benefit company.
U.S. federal government agency recoveries under the False Claims Act (FCA) are down slightly in the first half of 2023 relative to the first half of 2022, but that doesn’t mean companies in the life sciences can afford to let their guard down. The Senate is examining two pieces of legislation that would significantly amplify the risk for device and drug makers, including a Senate bill that would eviscerate the materiality standard as set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Escobar.
