D.C. District Court Grants FDA’s Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment in CYDECTIN PTE Case; Rules that FDA Rightly Decided that the PTE Review Phase Began Upon Submission of the CYDECTIN Administrative NADAMarch 23, 2009
By Kurt R. Karst –
We previously reported on a complaint filed by Wyeth Holdings Corporation and its Fort Dodge Animal Health Division (collectively “Wyeth”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against FDA and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requesting declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Wyeth’s request for a Patent Term Extension (“PTE”) for U.S. Patent #4,916,154 (“the ‘154 patent”). The ‘154 patent covers Wyeth’s new animal drug CYDECTIN (moxidectin) Pour-On. Earlier today, the District Court granted FDA’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for Summary Judgment and denied Wyeth’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
By way of background, under the PTE statute at 35 U.S.C. § 156(g)(4), certain patents covering animal drugs are eligible for a PTE if patent life was lost during a period when the product was undergoing regulatory review. As with other FDA-regulated products, such as human drugs and medical devices, the “regulatory review period” is composed of a “testing phase” and a “review phase.” For animal drugs approved under FDC Act § 512, the “testing phase” begins on the earlier of the effective date of an Investigational New Animal Drug (“INAD”) exemption or the date a major health or environmental effects test on the drug was initiated, and ends on the date a New Animal Drug Application (“NADA”) is “initially submitted” to FDA under FDC Act § 512(b). The “review phase” is the period between the initial submission and approval of the NADA. FDA’s PTE regulations at 21 C.F.R. § 60.22(f) clarify that a marketing application “is initially submitted on the date it contains sufficient information to allow FDA to commence review of the application.” The CYDECTIN PTE case concerns when the NADA was “initially submitted” to FDA.
FDA first approved CYDECTIN on January 28, 1998 under NADA #141-099. The NADA was submitted under FDA’s Phased Data Review Policy and Administrative NADA process. An Administrative NADA “is a new animal drug application that is submitted after all of the technical sections that fulfill the requirements for the approval of the new animal drug . . . have been reviewed by [the Center for Veterinary Medicine (‘CVM’)] and CVM has issued a technical section complete letter for each of those technical sections.” The human drug and medical device counterparts to the Administrative NADA are the statutory “Fast Track” process and the Modular Premarket Approval Application process, respectively. Both of these processes permit a type of rolling submission and review of marketing application sections. (FDA and the PTO have previously addressed both processes with respect to PTE issues.)
In March 1998, Wyeth timely submitted an application to the PTO requesting a PTE with respect to the ‘154 patent. In that application, Wyeth calculated a PTE based on the date the company submitted the first technical section to its INAD (i.e., August 8, 1995). Using this date, Wyeth calculated a new expiration date of the ‘154 patent of January 28, 2012. (The original expiration date of the ‘154 patent was April 10, 2007.)
In September 2006, FDA issued a Federal Register notice stating the Agency’s determination that the date NADA #141-099 was initially submitted to FDA was on January 13, 1998, when the final NADA component was submitted to the Agency. In the notice, the Agency also stated that “[i]t is FDA’s position that the approval phase begins when the marketing application is complete.” In November 2006, Wyeth submitted a request for reconsideration and revision of the regulatory review period. Wyeth argued that August 8, 1995 is the controlling date for PTE purposes. On May 7, 2008, FDA denied Wyeth’s request, stating that “it is FDA’s position that the approval phase for purposes of [PTE] begins when the marketing application is complete, including all technical sections and the CVM complete letters.” Wyeth promptly sued FDA alleging that using the August 8, 1995 date for purposes of calculating the PTE regulatory review period is consistent with Congress’ intent in passing the PTE provisions at 35 U.S.C. § 156 and with FDA’s PTE regulations at 21 C.F.R. 60.22(f), and that a mere 16-day approval period “is unreasonable.”
The District Court reviewed the case under the familiar framework of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Finding that both FDA and Wyeth had advanced plausible readings of the PTE statute – “FDA contends that there was no ‘application’ until Wyeth submitted its Administrative NADA; and Wyeth contends that the application was ‘initially submitted’ upon its submission of the first technical section” – the court determined under Chevron Step 1 that the statute is ambiguous, thereby necessitating review under Chevron Step 2.
Under a Chevron Step 2 analysis, the court ruled that:
Wyeth has not met its burden here because the court finds the FDA’s arguments to be more persuasive than those made by Wyeth. Indeed, the FDA’s construction runs true to the text and defines “initially submitted” in a manner “that is reasonable in light of the legislature’s revealed design.” . . . . Accordingly, the court cannot say that the FDA’s interpretation is based on an impermissible construction of the statute, nor can the court find that the FDA’s interpretation violates the APA.
It is unclear whether Wyeth will appeal the decision. We will update you as we learn more information.