Teva Sues FDA Over Generic Restasis Exclusivity
Teva has filed suit in D.C. federal court claiming that an FDA interpretation of the definition of “first applicant” for a generic form of Restasis (cyclosporine) is unlawful. Attorney Kurt Karst (Hymen, Phelps & McNamara) writes in his firm’s FDA Law Blog that a new FDA position was seen in a 7/13 letter decision explaining the agency’s rationale for determining that eligibility for 180-day exclusivity for certain strengths of generic Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone) sublingual film was forfeited. In that letter, the agency adopted a “First Submitted Interpretation Approach.”
“Until now,” Teva says in its suit, “FDA consistently maintained that eligibility for 180-day exclusivity hinges on a generic applicant submitting a legally valid challenge to the innovator’s patents that complies with all statutory requirements for such challenges, including the requirement to notify the brand manufacturer of any such challenge so that it can evaluate whether to sue the generic applicant for patent infringement.” The company says the agency’s attempt to jettison a 2016 rule that upheld its longstanding position in the context of a quasi-adjudicatory proceeding is thus “as procedurally defective as it is substantively baffling.”
The company asks the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration that FDA’s Suboxone letter decision “was issued without observance of procedure required by law and otherwise is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.” It also wants a court declaration that Teva’s ANDA for generic Restasis is entitled to 180-day exclusivity, and an order enjoining the agency from approving any ANDA for Restasis that “was not substantially complete as of 1/14/14 and/or for which the ANDA’s sponsor did not submit a lawfully maintained Paragraph 4 certification on 1/14/14.”