Introduction
In 2024, the Hatch-Waxman Act continued to play a critical role in the U.S. pharmaceutical landscape, driving the dynamics between brand-name drugmakers and generics. This landmark legislation, enacted to encourage innovation while ensuring access to affordable medications, remained a focal point for numerous legal battles and regulatory shifts. Key decisions throughout the year have refined interpretations of its provisions, influencing patent challenges, market exclusivities, and the pathway for generics. As the pharmaceutical sector navigates evolving market pressures, agency action, and possible legislation, the legal contours of the Hatch-Waxman Act continued to impact both the business and legal strategies of pharmaceutical companies in 2024.
The Year By Numbers
In the year 2024, 312 complaints were filed initiating Hatch-Waxman litigation (compared to 259 in 2023)1:
As evident above, the overwhelming majority of ANDA complaints were filed in the District of Delaware and the District of New Jersey. This common trend remains consistent for the same reasons these district courts have always been hubs for ANDA litigation: most pharmaceutical companies are incorporated in Delaware and are commonly headquartered in New Jersey. Furthermore, because these two jurisdictions handle the majority of ANDA litigation, the local patent rules and proclivities of judges within these districts generally account for the unique procedural complexities that large-scale Hatch-Waxman litigation can impose on these dockets.
Given that Hatch-Waxman litigation is statutorily decided at the bench if it goes to trial, it behooves all litigants to have matters handled by judges experienced in the technical subject matter. As shown above, almost 50% of all ANDA complaints filed were assigned to one of five judges, ensuring that those judges have familiarity with common Hatch-Waxman substantive and procedural issues, and usually leading to a rapport between those judges and the attorneys that frequently litigate in front of them.
In 2024, 283 on-going Hatch-Waxman litigations were either resolved or terminated.2 There was a slight decrease in settlements in 2024: 39% of terminated matters in 2024 compared to 50% in 2023.3 Innovator companies (i.e., NDA & patent holders) were considered to have prevailed on issues 20% of the time, whereas generic companies were considered to have prevailed on issues only 2% of the time (i.e., those decisions excluding settlements and procedural resolutions). While these statistics may suggest that innovator companies find favorable resolutions more frequently than generic manufacturers, generics generally may be more inclined to seek settlement when perceiving a likely favorable outcome, rather than continue litigation. This trend existed in 2023 and remained in 2024.
Looking at patent findings from 2024 (below4), evidently very few ANDA cases were decided at summary judgment in 2024, a frequency from which few conclusions can be drawn. When cases went to trial, however, we saw a finding of infringement more frequently than noninfringement, and validity was upheld more frequently than not. Of those that were held invalid at trial, most were decided on obviousness grounds. Granted, however, these numbers don't consider invalidity positions that were dropped due to case narrowing prior to trial, rather than on the merits.
This contrasts slightly to the results from 2023 (below5):
Namely, judges were seemingly more reticent to find patents invalid at summary judgment in 2024, while they did so three times in 2023 - again, however, a small sample size. In good news for innovator companies, district courts not only held patents invalid at trial far less frequently in 2024 compared to the year prior: 4 of 17 (24%) and 9 of 15 (60%), respectively. District courts also found infringement of valid patents at trial slightly more in 2024 compared to the year prior: 9 of 13 (69%) versus 6 of 10 (60%), respectively.
Federal Circuit Decisions and the Greater Context In Which They Fit
We saw a slight uptick in Hatch-Waxman decisions from the Federal Circuit last year (7 in 2024 compared to 5 in both 2023 and 2022), some of which significantly affect going forward how practitioners and in-house counsel manage and plan their IP strategies, expand their portfolios through prosecution, and preserve existing exclusivities in the federal courts and in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Some of the decisions we've seen from the Federal Circuit in 2024 were also germane to broader agency and legislative proposals that could come to fruition in 2025, as discussed below.
Edwards Lifesciences v. Meril Life Sciences6& the Safe Harbor Provision
Holding: The Hatch-Waxman safe harbor applied to the importation of two demonstration samples to a medical conference for the purpose of recruiting clinical investigators to support FDA approval.
Although not a decision surrounding the filing of an ANDA, the Federal Circuit began their 2024 Hatch-Waxman jurisprudence addressing the safe harbor provision, 35 U.S.C. ' 271(e)(1): a valuable mechanism for fostering innovation in the pharmaceutical space. Federal Circuit precedent has interpreted the provision as broad, applying "as long as there is a reasonable basis for believing that the use of the patented invention will produce the types of information that are relevant to an FDA submission,"7 and even extending to activities which may be promotional rather than regulatory, but "where those activities are consistent with the collection of data necessary for filing an application with the FDA."8 Here, Judges Stoll, Cunningham, and Lourie (dissenting) addressed whether the importation of two demonstration-only transcatheter heart valves for a conference during the process of pre-market approval was protected by the safe harbor, and ultimately affirmed precedent.9 As Judge Stoll put it, the question is not why or how the devices were imported or used, but whether the importation was for a use reasonably related to submitting information to the FDA.10 It was here. On appeal from a grant of summary judgment of no infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Meril imported the devices for purposes reasonably related to recruiting investigators during pre-market approval processes and thus was covered by the safe harbor provision.11 For innovator companies, especially those in crowded commercial spaces where the risk of "brand-to-brand" litigation is higher, the safe harbor's broad applicability to a variety of pre-approval activities under the "reasonably related" standard offers peace of mind throughout early stages of product development; however, practitioners should advise their clients that the safe harbor is less helpful post-FDA approval, where routine submissions aren't generally afforded the same protection.12
While courts may view the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor as offering a "wide berth,"13 U.S. patent law generally has a particularly narrow experimental use defense to patent infringement.14 The Edwards decision was followed months later by a request for public commentary by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on the potential legislative codification of the experimental use exception.15 To date, statutory experimental use defenses are confined in the U.S. to the Hatch-Waxman Act16 and the Plant Variety Protection Act,17 but are codified in a much broader fashion in other leading IP countries, such as Germany, China, and India. Feedback to the USPTO's request was mixed; proponents of further codification suggested the exception was overly narrow, vague, or detrimental to US innovation on the global scale, whereas those with opposing viewpoints generally suggested the status quo was sufficient. At this time, the USPTO has not taken any further public action on the topic, but don't be surprised if we see legislation promoting American innovation in 2025, such as an expanded codification of the experimental use defense.
Salix Pharmaceuticals v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals,18 Post-trial Section VIII Carve-outs, and the Obviousness of Polymorph Patents
Holding: The district court did not err in denying the generic's motion to modify judgment after amending its ANDA to remove an infringing indication after trial; the district court also did not err in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success obtaining certain polymorph forms of rifaximin.
One month later, the first ANDA decision came from the Federal Circuit from Judges Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham (dissenting in part), who issued a surprising decision in light of (but not contradictory to) previous rulings on polymorph patents, while also addressing a unique post-trial tactic by the ANDA filer to gain earlier entry into the market. With respect to the former, Federal Circuit precedent has made it clear that finding polymorph claims obvious is a tall task given the unpredictability of...
