Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Henney

94 F. Supp. 2d 36 (2000)

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

Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Henney

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
94 F. Supp. 2d 36 (2000)

Facts

In August 1985, Imperial Chemicals Industries, PLC was given a patent for brand-name drug tamoxifen, which was exclusively produced by its subsidiary, Zeneca, Inc. In December 1985, Barr Laboratories submitted an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market its generic tamoxifen. Barr later amended its ANDA to challenge the validity of Imperial’s patent and to change its paragraph III certification to a paragraph IV certification, which would make it eligible for the marketing exclusivity incentive in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, (FDCA), which would be triggered upon the earlier of (1) Barr’s first commercial marketing of its generic drug, or (2) the date of a final decision of a court holding that Imperial’s patent is invalid. Thereafter, Imperial sued Barr for patent infringement, and a federal district court held that Imperial’s patent was invalid. While an appeal was pending, the case settled with Barr withdrawing its patent-invalidity claim and amending its ANDA back to a paragraph III certification. The appellate court granted the parties’ request to vacate the district-court decision. Within a year of that vacatur, generic tamoxifen drug manufacturers—Pharmachemie, B.V. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc (plaintiffs)—filed ANDAs with paragraph IV certifications, and Zeneca sued each for patent infringement. Before the expiration of Pharmachemie and Mylan’s statutory stays, Barr filed a petition with the FDA to continue to credit Barr with the marketing exclusivity incentive and to not approve any ANDA for generic tamoxifen. The FDA, ignoring the district court’s decision invalidating Imperial’s patent, approved Barr’s petition after concluding that Barr’s 180-day exclusivity period had not yet been triggered because there had not been a court decision nor commercial marketing of Barr’s generic tamoxifen. Pharmachemie and Mylan sued the FDA, alleging that its decision was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of FDA regulations because Barr was no longer entitled to the exclusivity period.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Urbina, 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