The nationwide preliminary injunction keeping the U.S. NIH from slashing its indirect cost rate to a flat 15% has become permanent. In issuing the permanent injunction and final judgment April 4 in three challenges to the rate change, Judge Angel Kelley, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, said the NIH’s Feb. 7 notice that it would begin imposing the 15% rate Feb. 10 to all existing and future grants violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as the action was arbitrary and capricious, was impermissibly retroactive and failed to follow notice-and-comment procedures.
One of the uncertainties in the changing of the guard in both the U.S. administration and Congress is the future of 340B reforms. Now the Inflation Reduction Act makes reforms more critical than ever, as it requires manufacturers of drugs selected for price negotiations to certify that they’re giving 340B entities the lowest price, be it the 340B discount or the maximum fair price set by the CMS as part of the negotiation process.
Litigation between companies in the med-tech space often revolves around patents, but the ongoing series of lawsuits between Philips Respironics Inc. and Soclean Inc. are directed toward the interaction between CPAP machines and CPAP cleaning systems.
With inter partes reviews (IPR) once feared as patent killers, the mere fact that an IPR petition challenging a drug or device patent had been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was enough to send a company’s stock tumbling. That initial fear has “kind of ebbed and flowed” over the past 12 years as the patent reviews established by the America Invents Act have come of age, Aziz Burgy, a partner and patent litigator at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, told BioWorld.
Just a day after the U.S. FTC released an interim report on harmful pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) practices and appeared before a House subcommittee that encouraged the commissioners to take enforcement action, the agency reportedly was preparing to file suit against the country’s three largest PBMs over their practices in negotiating insulin and other drug prices.
Even though the U.S. FTC recently claimed a court victory in its campaign to shut down the listing of device patents for drugs in the FDA’s Orange Book, 80% of the listings targeted in the commission’s first round of warning letters remain in place more than seven months later.
Weighing in on the side of 21 drug and device companies accused of knowingly aiding and abetting terrorist attacks against U.S. troops and civilians in Iraq from 2005 to 2011, the U.S. solicitor general is asking the Supreme Court to grant the companies’ petition for cert and then vacate a 2022 appellate court decision in Joshua Atchley v. Astrazeneca plc, remanding it for reconsideration in light of a related opinion the justices handed down a year ago.
Just a few days after the U.S. Congressional Research Service issued a report suggesting ways Congress could resolve the unanswered questions about patent listings in the FDA’s Orange Book, the FTC sent a second round of warning letters to eight biopharma companies and their subsidiaries, citing the listing of device patents for combination products.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may have ruled last year that the Department of Health and Human Services doesn’t get to fill in the gaps in the law that created the 340B prescription drug discount program, but some states and lawmakers are coming up with their own workarounds to force drug manufacturers to give the discounts to an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.
