Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)


Facts

The Hatch-Waxman Act provided a patent infringement safe harbor in 47 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) that allowed companies to “make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States . . . a patented invention . . . solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. § 301, et seq., or other related federal law. Congress implemented the safe harbor to accelerate the production and regulatory approval of generic versions of patented products, when the marketing of such generic versions would commence only after the expiration of the relevant patents. Biogen Idec (Biogen) (defendant) participated in various studies evaluating the risks associated with the combination and timing of childhood vaccinations. Biogen reported the results of these studies to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Biogen did not report the results of the studies for purposes of FDA approval of a generic product. Classen Immunotherapies (Classen) (plaintiff) brought a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Classen argued that the § 271(e)(1) safe harbor applied only to activities conducted prior to FDA approval of generic versions of patented inventions. The district court disagreed and granted Biogen summary judgment based on the § 271(e)(1) safe harbor. Classen appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Newman, 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, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Moore, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.