1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Safe Harbor of 271(E)(1) Broadly Applied

Safe Harbor of 271(E)(1) Broadly Applied

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.15.07

On remand from the Supreme Court, a Federal Circuit panel in Integra Lifesciences v. Merck KGaA, (Nos. 02-1052 and -1065; July 27, 2007) explores whether the FDA Exemption from infringement (or “safe harbor”) established by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) applies to research conducted by Merck and Scripps on certain peptides useful for inhibiting angiogenesis. Concluding that the FDA Exemption applies, the panel reverses the district court’s judgment of infringement. In reaching this conclusion, the panel relied on the Supreme Court explanation that § 271(e)(1) “exempted from infringement all uses of patented compounds ‘reasonably related’ to the process of developing information for submission” to the FDA. The Supreme Court had also explained that the phrase “reasonably related” includes uses in research that are conducted after the biological mechanism and physiological effect of a candidate drug have been recognized, such that if the research is successful it would appropriately be included in a submission to the FDA.

Applying this standard, the Federal Circuit determines (i) that Integra conceded that the experiments were conducted after it had been discovered that a particular class of peptides shrank tumors in an animal model and (ii) that Integra did not dispute that that the accused experiments yielded data relating to efficacy, mechanism of action, pharmacology, or pharmacokinetics. The Federal Circuit expressly rejects Integra’s arguments that experiments involving compounds that were not taken to clinical trials were infringing; that the FDA Exemption applies only to experiments to show that a candidate drug can safely be administered to humans in clinical trials; and that the FDA Exemption is limited to experiments that are entirely routine. Instead, the panel determines that the experiments meet the criteria of being reasonably related to research that, if successful, would be appropriate to include in a submission to the FDA. Accordingly, the research falls within the safe harbor.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26

Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case....