Actavis Elizabeth LLC v. Food and Drug Administration

625 F.3d 760 (2010)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Actavis Elizabeth LLC v. Food and Drug Administration

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
625 F.3d 760 (2010)

Facts

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Shire Pharmaceuticals (Shire) five-year market exclusivity for Shire’s attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, under the brand name Vyvanse. The FDA’s interpretation of its regulations allows five-year exclusivity for drugs containing derivative molecules of previously approved active moieties that are not in the form of an ester, salt, or other noncovalent derivative. Vyvanse was a drug that contained a derivative molecule of previously approved active moieties because once lisdexamfetamine enters the body, it undergoes a chemical conversion to produce dextroamphetamine, which had previously received FDA approval. In industry terms, lisdexamfetamine is a prodrug of dextroamphetamine, and the FDA finds prodrugs that are not esters, salts, or other noncovalent derivatives eligible for five-year exclusivity. Before the expiration of Shire’s exclusivity period, generic-drug competitor Actavis Elizabeth LLC (Actavis) filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for its generic drug lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, referencing Vyvanse. The FDA found Actavis’s ANDA was premature and returned it unfiled. Actavis filed a suit against the FDA to force the FDA to rescind its grant of exclusivity to Vyvanse and to accept Actavis’s ANDA. Shire intervened. The district court granted summary judgment for the FDA and Shire, and Actavis appealed. Because lisdexamfetamine dimesylate is a salt of lisdexamfetamine, Actavis argued this rendered it ineligible for five-year exclusivity because salts are not considered active moieties. Actavis specifically challenged the FDA’s interpretation that treats the entire molecule as that responsible for the action of the drug substance, and therefore a separate active moiety entitled to five-year exclusivity. In other words, Activas argued that five-year exclusivity should not be given to any drug containing a drug molecule that eventually produces a previously approved drug molecule in the body.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Randolph, J.)

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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership