Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

University of Missouri School of Law

Series

Hatch-Waxman

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Law Of 180-Day Exclusivity, Erika Lietzan, Julia Post Jan 2016

The Law Of 180-Day Exclusivity, Erika Lietzan, Julia Post

Faculty Publications

In 1984, Congress created a statutory pathway for approval of generic drug applications and included an incentive for generic applicants to challenge the patents claiming the reference drugs on which they based their applications. The first generic applicant to file an ANDA with a patent challenge is eligible for 180 days of generic market exclusivity. This article is the fourth in a series of articles describing the resulting body of law, as interpreted and applied by FDA (in regulations, guidances, citizen petition responses, and individual decisions awarding and denying exclusivity) and the courts. The heart of the article is section …


Unofficial Legislative History Of The Biologics Price Competition And Innovation Act 2009, An, Erika Lietzan, Krista Hessler Carver, Jeffrey Elikan Jan 2010

Unofficial Legislative History Of The Biologics Price Competition And Innovation Act 2009, An, Erika Lietzan, Krista Hessler Carver, Jeffrey Elikan

Faculty Publications

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) which created a regulatory pathway for, and scheme for litigation of patent issues relating to, “biosimilar” biological products. This article discusses the history of the BPCIA and explains its provisions. Section I provides background and a history of the regulation of drugs and biological products in the United States. Section II describes the growing interest in biosimilar approval from the early 2000s through September 2006, when the legislative debate began in earnest. Section III describes the legislative and stakeholder process from …


A New History And Discussion Of 180-Day Exclusivity, Erika Lietzan, David E. Korn, Shaw W. Scott Jan 2009

A New History And Discussion Of 180-Day Exclusivity, Erika Lietzan, David E. Korn, Shaw W. Scott

Faculty Publications

This is the third in a series of articles on 180-day exclusivity. The first article traced the history of 180-day exclusivity from 1984 through its amendment in 2003 and court cases in 2004. A second article, published by two of the authors in 2007, updated the earlier piece through the end of 2006 but was arranged by issue rather than in a chronology. This article, which includes a third author, provides a comprehensive resource on 180-day exclusivity for old abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) (but less detail in some places where the 2007 article may be referenced) and focuses more …


Issues In The Interpretation Of 180-Day Exclusivity, Erika Lietzan, David E. Korn Jan 2007

Issues In The Interpretation Of 180-Day Exclusivity, Erika Lietzan, David E. Korn

Faculty Publications

Congress created 180-day exclusivity for generic drug applicants in the 1984 Hatch-Waxman amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and amended it substantially in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). The core concept of this exclusivity as it has been applied by FDA and the courts is that the first generic drug applicant to challenge an innovator's patent is entitled to six months of exclusivity against subsequent patent challengers for the same innovator drug. The 180-day exclusivity provision is governed by sections 505(j)(5)(B)(iv) and 505(j)(5)(D) of the FDCA, and it is intended …


2004 Update - 180-Day Exclusivity Under The Hatch-Waxman Amendments To The Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act, Erika Lietzan Jan 2004

2004 Update - 180-Day Exclusivity Under The Hatch-Waxman Amendments To The Federal Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act, Erika Lietzan

Faculty Publications

This article updates the author's previously published article on the topic, provides some insight into recent events in this area of the law, and specifies a few minor items that were noted incorrectly in the earlier work.