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 | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
FinCEN Delays Implementation Date and Reopens AML/CFT Rule for Investment Advisers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
Series of Major Data Breaches Targeting the Insurance Industry
Client Alert | 11 min read | 08.06.25