• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

Hatch–Waxman This, Wockhardt! —Eli Lilly Maintains Patent Exclusivity for Cymbalta®

Submitted by Aaron Gleaton on April 29, 2011 – 9:00 AM3350One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2011%2F04%2F29%2Fhatch%25e2%2580%2593waxman-this-wockhardt-%25e2%2580%2594eli-lilly-maintains-patent-exclusivity-for-cymbalta%25c2%25ae%2FHatch%E2%80%93Waxman+This%2C+Wockhardt%21+%E2%80%94Eli+Lilly+Maintains+Patent+Exclusivity+for+Cymbalta%C2%AE2011-04-29+13%3A00%3A08Aaron+Gleatonhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D3350

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has issued an order prohibiting defendants from selling generic versions of Cymbalta (duloxetine hydrochloride) during the drug’s remaining patent term. The order arises from ongoing litigation in the case Eli Lilly and Co. v. Wockhardt Ltd.

This all started in 2008 when Wockhardt submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking approval for generic Cymbalta tablets, using Eli Lilly’s data for Cymbalta, before the expiration of the patent term. As a result of the Hatch–Waxman Act, the first company is able to challenge a drug’s patent during the pioneer drug’s patent term.  The Act gives this first-filer a 180-day market exclusivity, during which time other generic versions of the drug are precluded from entering the market—a major financial incentive for companies such as Wockhardt.

As a result of Wockhardt’s ANDA application, Eli Lilly filed an infringement lawsuit against Wockhardt, to which Wockhardt responded by claiming invalidity. The challenges to Cymbalta’s patent included a §103 obviousness challenge, as well as the following catch-all: “Failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.”

Notwithstanding these challenges, the district court ordered Wockhardt to refrain from entering the market during Cymbalta’s existing patent term, which should last until at least June 2013. The order also requires that Wockhardt notify the FDA that it no longer seeks approval of their previously submitted ANDA during the patent term.

This is a significant win for Eli Lilly, a major innovation driven company that needs its market exclusivity to fund its research and development efforts for future drugs. Another year of Cymbalta being on the market likely means millions in revenue for Lilly. Robert Armitage, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Eli Lilly, states, “We are very pleased with the District Court’s order that effectively maintains U.S. exclusivity for Cymbalta throughout its patented life…Protection of intellectual property rights is extremely important to the biopharmaceutical industry and the patients we serve. These rights provide assurances of market exclusivity that help support the development of the next generation of innovative medicine to treat unmet medical needs.”

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Aaron Gleaton

Aaron Gleaton is a 3L at the American University Washington College of Law, a Note and Comment Editor of the Administrative Law Review, and a Senior Blog Editor for the IP Brief. He is interested in the intersection of pharmaceutical ("pharma") patent law and food and drug law, particularly Hatch-Waxman litigation. Aaron is originally from Charlotte, N.C. and received a B.S. in Biology from the Virginia Military Institute.

Aaron Gleaton has written 5 posts for the IPB.

3350One Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2011%2F04%2F29%2Fhatch%25e2%2580%2593waxman-this-wockhardt-%25e2%2580%2594eli-lilly-maintains-patent-exclusivity-for-cymbalta%25c2%25ae%2FHatch%E2%80%93Waxman+This%2C+Wockhardt%21+%E2%80%94Eli+Lilly+Maintains+Patent+Exclusivity+for+Cymbalta%C2%AE2011-04-29+13%3A00%3A08Aaron+Gleatonhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D3350 »

  • American University Intellectual Property Brief » Isis Pharmaceuticals Files Lawsuit Against Santaris says:
    September 27, 2011 at 8:03 AM

    [...] Hatch-Waxman Act, 35. U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), which articulates the fundamentals of the research exemption doctrine, [...]

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Mexico Joins the Madrid Protocol Cracking Down on Counterfeit Wine and Spirits: Business, Health, and Intellectual Property Judge Rules Against Generic Drug Manufacturers in Crestor Patent Challenge The Patent Abuse of Patent Infringement Claims Volume 3, Issue 2 of the Intellectual Property Brief is now available! A Student’s Perspective on Science and Engineering Education and Patent Prosecution NFL Coerces Man Into Giving up “Harbowl” Trademark Filing USPTO Launches Trademarks Dashboard Feature Don't Forget Common Sense Netflix Changing It Up Again The IP Clinic Advocates for Consumers in Aereo and Aereokiller Proceedings Getting a Trademark Holder’s Goat
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License