OBB Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to subscribe to the Orange Book Blog newsletter. If a new post is added during the day, you'll receive it by e-mail the next morning.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

AddThis Feed Button

Disclaimer

  • Orange Book Blog is published for informational purposes only; it contains no legal advice whatsoever. Publication of Orange Book Blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. Orange Book Blog is Aaron Barkoff's personal website and it is intended primarily for other attorneys. Orange Book Blog is not edited by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP ("MBHB") or its clients. Therefore, no part of Orange Book Blog--whether information, commentary, or other--may be attributed to MBHB or its clients. Readers should be aware that MBHB represents many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, and therefore Orange Book Blog may occasionally report on news that relates to MBHB clients. Orange Book Blog will always strive to be unbiased in its reporting. All information on Orange Book Blog should be double-checked for its accuracy and current applicability. -- © Aaron F. Barkoff 2006-08

« FDA Grants Final Approval to Ivax and Ranbaxy for Generic Zocor | Main | Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in FTC v. Schering: reverse payment settlement of Hatch-Waxman case avoids antitrust scrutiny by high court »

June 25, 2006

FDA Appeals Omnitrope Case to D.C. Circuit

The FDA recently appealed the district court case that forced it to make a decision on Sandoz's drug application for Omnitrope, which later led to FDA to approve Omnitrope.  Sandoz has called Omnitrope the first ever biogeneric drug.

In a decision on April 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held, on summary judgment, that 21 U.S.C. 355(c) requires the FDA act on a new drug application within 180 days of receiving it.  More specifically, within 180 days the FDA must either approve the new drug application or give the applicant notice of an opportunity for a hearing.

The FDA did not deny that it did neither of those things.  Instead, the FDA argued that the statute was aspirational rather than mandatory.  The FDA argued in the alternative that the court should respect the autonomy of the executive branch and let the FDA set its own priorities.

IN OTHER BIOGENERICS NEWS, FDANews is running a story tomorrow quoting a Senate staffer who said that Congress would likely not take up legislation establishing a regulatory pathway for biogenerics until 2008.

RELATED READING:

NOTE:  thanks to Kurt Karst for providing a copy of the FDA's Notice of Appeal.

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.