FDA Law Update : FDA Regulation Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Food & Drug Administration Product Regulations

By Gray Buccigross

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 18126, on August 31, 2011. As part of that decision it held that the safe-harbor provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act is limited to activities reasonably related to obtaining pre-marketing FDA approval of generic counterparts, and does not protect post-approval research activities.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Peter S. Reichertz

In a Federal Register notice of September 7, 2011,[1] the Office of Human Research Protection (“OHRP”) and the Food and Drug Administration have clarified that a waiver by an individual in an informed consent to compensation for use of his/her biospecimens is not “exculpatory”, and permissible, if worded properly. This Guidance – entitled “Guidance on Exculpatory Language in Informed Consent" – applies to research conducted for purposes of FDA approval, as well as research sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”).
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Seth A. Mailhot

On Friday, July 29, 2011, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (IOM) released its long awaited report on the premarket clearance process under section 510(k) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.[1] The premarket clearance submission, commonly known as a 510(k), allows manufacturers to market a medical device based on its similarity, or “substantial equivalence,” to one or more marketed devices (called “predicate devices”). The 510(k) process is the most widely used pathway for marketing medical devices through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and is intended for intermediate risk devices.[2] The report was anticipated to provide clear action items to the agency to strengthen the 510(k) process and make it more responsive to companies developing emerging medical technology. Instead, the recommendations made by the IOM committee only heighten the current uncertainty with the future direction of the 510(k) process.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Peter S. Reichertz

The Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2011, that generic drug manufacturers cannot be sued for a failure to warn under state tort law, as long as their labeling complies with the FDA mandated labeling for the innovator drug product. While the Court had previously declined to find that federal regulation and approval of drug labeling of an innovator drug preempted state tort law in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 US 555 (2009), the Court ruled 5-4 in Pliva that the comprehensive scheme for approval of generic drugs under the 1984 Hatch-Waxman amendments required generic manufacturers to use the same labeling as the innovator brand name product. Since the law and FDA regulations, as conceded by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), preclude a generic company from obtaining approval of labeling different from the innovator brand name product, the Court held it was not possible for a generic manufacturer to comply with both federal and state law. As such, under the doctrine of impossibility, they ruled federal law was supreme and state tort laws on failure to warn were preempted. In so finding, they held that the issue of “impossibility” turns on whether the private party could independently do under federal law what state law requires of it. In this case, they held that generic manufacturers could only ask FDA to change labeling and could not do so without FDA approval, and thus could not act independently.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Seth A. Mailhot and Allie Frumin

On June 14, 2011 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced new requirements for sunscreens and sunscreen-containing products currently sold over-the-counter. These changes are covered in a Federal Register notice to be published on June 17, 2011. The Final Rule will have a significant impact on producers of sunscreens and cosmetics and will result in changes to labeling, advertising and formulation of a vast array of products containing sunscreen and making sunscreen claims. In addition to the Final Rule, which will take effect for most producers on June 18, 2012, the FDA has also developed a Proposed Rule, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a Draft Guidance for Industry regarding these products.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Peter S. Reichertz and Allie Frumin

On March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 09-1156. See our prior blog article from November 18, 2010.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Peter S. Reichertz and Allie Frumin

January 19, FDA announced its plan to modify the 510(k) “approval” pathway, the most common review path for medical devices. Specifically, FDA released a report containing twenty-five actions it intends to take in 2011 to “improve” the review process. Importantly, however, no changes have yet been made to the process; FDA has just announced its plan of action of how it intends to address potential changes to the process.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Deborah M. Shelton

In the flurry of legislation passed by the 111^th Congress in its final days, the Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) cleared the Senate by unanimous voice vote on December 20, passed the House 215-144 the following day, and was signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011 ("date of enactment"), immediately upon returning from his holiday vacation in Hawaii.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Deborah M. Shelton and Allie Frumin

On Tuesday December 7^th, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling in Sottera, Inc. v. FDA, No. 10-5032, (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2010) holding that that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could not regulate as a medical device the electronic cigarettes (often referred to as “e-cigarettes”) at issue in that case. Instead, the court affirmed the district court’s finding that FDA’s authority over these e-cigarettes, as labeled, was limited to that over traditional tobacco products.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Peter S. Reichertz

In a prior article dated May 25, 2010, we advised of a new excise tax on branded pharmaceutical manufacturers. We indicated that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA") required the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") to publish guidance "necessary to carry out the purpose" of the section in which the tax is included. The IRS has now issued that guidance ("the Guidance"). 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Peter S. Reichertz

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for January 10, 2011, in the case of Matrixx Initiatives et al v. Siracusano, Case Number 09-1156, on appeal from the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Siracusano v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 585 F3d 1167 (9^th Cir. 2008).  The court granted certiorari on July 14, 2010.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Robert L. Magielnicki

Many marketers of OTC drugs and devices, cosmetics, foods and dietary supplements make claims with regard to the content of their products and/or the packaging for their products. and their fate in or effect on the environment. These claims are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and its “false and misleading” authority found in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC first issued its guidance on these rules in 1992, and revised them in 1996 and 1998.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Deborah M. Shelton

Having had the opportunity to analyze the biosimilars provisions of the new health care law enacted this past March, stakeholders have at long last the chance on November 2-3 to weigh in on FDA's implementation of the biosimilar approval pathway. FDA will hold a two-day public hearing on November 2-3, 2010, from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, at the FDA Conference Center on FDA's campus in White Oak, Maryland.  FDA published its official announcement of the public hearing in the October 5^th issue of the Federal Register. 75 Fed. Reg. 61497 (Oct. 5, 2010). Here is the link to the Federal Register Notice: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-24853.pdf.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By Peter Reichertz

On August 9, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published a notice announcing a public meeting to be held September 17, 2010, “to gather stakeholder input on the development of a generic drug user fee program.” See 75 Fed. Reg. 47,820-21. FDA also requested submission of written comments on issues relating to assessment of user fees for generic drugs, which can be submitted by no later than October 17, 2010.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link