Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

aaiPharma, Inc. v. Thompson

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
296 F.3d 227 (2002)


Facts

On July 10 2001, aaiPharma, Inc. (“aaiPharma”) (plaintiff) obtained the ‘853 patent for a variant of the active ingredient in the brand-name antidepressant drug, Prozac which was manufactured by Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”). As soon as Lilly’s exclusivity relating to Prozac expired on August 2, 2001, several drug manufacturers planning to market generic versions of Prozac. aaiPharma was concerned that its ‘853 patent might be infringed by those generic drug makers and sought to have its ‘853 patent included in the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) (defendant) publication, Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly referred to as the “Orange Book.” Only a brand-name, or “pioneer,” drug manufacturer could submit patents for inclusion in the Orange Book. aaiPharma asked Lilly to submit the ‘853 patent to be included in the Prozac listing, but Lilly refused. aaiPharma then sent a letter to the FDA asking the agency to intervene and require Lilly to include the ‘853 patent. The FDA claimed that it was not responsible for the correctness of Orange Book listings. However, the FDA did send a letter to Lilly requesting that it confirm the correctness of the Orange Book listing related to Prozac. aaiPharma then sued the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, claiming that the agency had a duty to ensure the accuracy of the Orange Book listings and its refusal violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). The district court rejected aaiPharma’s claims, concluding that the FDA’s role regarding the Orange Book listings was purely “ministerial.”

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Michael, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 170,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.