BarbriSFCourseDetails
  • videocam On-Demand
  • card_travel Patent
  • schedule 90 minutes

Hatch-Waxman Litigation and 30-Month Stays: Multiple Stays, Late-Listed Patents, and More

$347.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

BarbriPdBannerMessage

Description

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the owner of an Orange Book-listed patent covering an innovative pharmaceutical product is entitled to a 30-month stay if it sues a generic drug applicant within 45 days of receiving a Paragraph IV notice letter. When the stay is in place, the FDA will not grant final approval of the generic product.

While this procedure seems relatively straightforward, a surprising number of questions regarding 30-month stays can and do arise. What are the requirements for filing suit to trigger a stay? Can pharmaceutical companies get multiple stays, for example, by listing multiple patents in the Orange Book? Will reissue of the patent during litigation or challenges at the USPTO affect the stay?

Listen as our authoritative panel explains the 30-month stay in Hatch-Waxman Act litigation. The panel will discuss when the FDA will grant a stay--and when it will not. The panel will review when a stay may extend beyond 30 months and when it may be shortened.

Presented By

Mark J. Feldstein
Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP

Dr. Feldstein focuses on U.S. district court litigation, primarily concerning the enforcement of U.S. patent rights and trade secret issues, and post-grant trial proceedings at the USPTO, including inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR). He maintains an active patent prosecution practice, preparing and prosecuting U.S. patent applications on behalf of domestic and foreign clients. He also provides opinions and strategic guidance to clients on infringement, validity, enforceability, and clearance matters. His practice encompasses a range of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, biochemistry, polymers, small molecule chemistry, optics, and medical and analytic devices.

Barbara R. Rudolph
Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP

Dr. Rudolph has successfully litigated complex Hatch-Waxman Paragraph IV Abbreviated New Drug Application and biotechnology cases over the past twenty years. She serves as lead counsel in pharmaceutical and biotechnology disputes and has extensive litigation experience in federal courts. She has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and authored an amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark biotechnology patent case. She devises strategies to protect clients' valuable intellectual property involving sophisticated technologies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

M. David Weingarten
Partner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP

Dr. Weingarten has a diverse intellectual property practice focusing on patent litigation before U.S. district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), post-grant trial proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), prosecution, and strategic portfolio management. He also drafts opinions on patent infringement, validity, and enforceability, and prepares intellectual property agreements, such as those relating to license and supply. In addition, he prepares and prosecutes U.S. patent applications on behalf of domestic and foreign clients.

Credit Information
  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Thursday, October 29, 2020

  • schedule

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  1. Triggers
    1. Requirements
    2. Defective complaint
    3. Multiple stays
  2. Potential impacts
    1. Additional listing
    2. Paragraph III or IV certifications
    3. Change in product
    4. Expiration with pending litigation
    5. Reissue during litigation
    6. Challenges at USPTO

The panel will review these and other crucial issues:

  • Can a "defective" complaint trigger the stay?
  • Can a late-listed patent give rise to a stay?
  • Is a generic drug applicant subject to a second 30-month stay if it converts a Paragraph III certification to a second Paragraph IV?
  • What is the impact of the stay expiring while the litigation is pending?
  • What is the impact of the litigation ending while the stay is in place?
  • What impact does a USPTO decision or pending USPTO proceedings have on a stay?