AAIPHARMA INCORPORATED v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, et al.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
296 F.3d 227 (2002)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which assigns the agency a purely ministerial role in publishing patent information in the Orange Book without substantively reviewing its accuracy, is a permissible construction of the statute and does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Facts:

Eli Lilly & Company (Lilly) was the holder of the New Drug Application (NDA) for the brand-name antidepressant Prozac.
Lilly's primary patent protection for Prozac was scheduled to expire on August 2, 2001, allowing generic drug manufacturers to enter the market.
On July 10, 2001, aaiPharma Inc. obtained a new patent ('853 patent) that it believed claimed a polymorphic variant of the active ingredient in Prozac.
aaiPharma requested that Lilly submit the '853 patent to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for inclusion in the "Orange Book," which lists patents associated with approved drugs.
Inclusion in the Orange Book would have allowed aaiPharma to trigger a 30-month stay on the approval of generic versions of Prozac by filing a patent infringement suit.
Lilly refused aaiPharma's request to submit the '853 patent for listing.
aaiPharma then asked the FDA to compel Lilly to list the patent, but the FDA declined to intervene beyond asking Lilly to confirm its listing's correctness.

Procedural Posture:

aaiPharma Inc. sued the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging the FDA's refusal to intervene violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
aaiPharma filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the FDA from approving generic versions of Prozac.
After a non-evidentiary hearing on the preliminary relief motion, the district court denied the motion from the bench.
The district court subsequently entered a final judgment on the merits against aaiPharma, without providing prior notice to the parties.
aaiPharma appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman Act, under which it assumes only a ministerial role to publish patent information submitted by a New Drug Application (NDA) holder and has no duty to ensure the accuracy of such listings, arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the Administrative Procedure Act?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Michael

No. The FDA's interpretation of its role as purely ministerial is a permissible construction of the statute and is not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law. The court applied the two-step Chevron analysis to evaluate the FDA's interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Hatch-Waxman Act. At step one, the court found the statute to be ambiguous, as one provision (21 U.S.C. § 355(c)(2)) suggests a purely ministerial role by stating the FDA "shall publish" submitted information, while other provisions (§§ 355(d)(6) and (e)(4)) imply a more substantive enforcement role. Because Congress did not speak clearly, the court proceeded to step two, finding the FDA's interpretation to be reasonable and permissible. The agency's position that it lacks the resources and patent expertise to police the accuracy of listings is a rational basis for its policy. This division of labor, where the FDA focuses on drug safety and efficacy while patent disputes are resolved by private parties in court, is consistent with the overall structure of the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the FDA's 'hands-off' approach to the Orange Book, confirming that its role is administrative, not adjudicative. It establishes that the onus for accurate patent listing rests solely with the New Drug Application (NDA) holder, leaving third-party patent holders and generic manufacturers with no administrative remedy at the FDA to correct perceived errors or omissions. This creates an 'enforcement gap' where an NDA holder's decisions about what to list, or not list, are not subject to direct regulatory oversight, potentially impacting both patent protection and generic drug competition. The ruling reinforces the division of labor envisioned by the Hatch-Waxman Act, directing complex patent disputes to federal courts rather than the regulatory agency.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: AAIPHARMA INCORPORATED v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, et al. (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature