Hatch-Waxman can’t offer ‘safe harbour’ defence in gene therapy case
Sarepta Therapeutics won’t be able to rely on a “safe harbour” provision to protect its gene therapy invention from a patent infringement suit from biotech Regenxbio and the University of Pennsylvania, a Delaware court has ruled.
Judge Richard Andrews handed down the decision at the US District Court for the District of Delaware on Tuesday, January 4.
Regenxbio and the trustees of the University of Pennsylvania sued Sarepta for patent infringement in September 2020, claiming that its therapy infringed the university’s patent, US patent number 10,526,617.
The '617 patent claims a “cultured host cell containing a recombinant nucleic acid molecule encoding the capsid protein”.
Regenxbio and the university claim that Sarepta manufactured and used the patented cultured host cells to make “recombinant adeno-associated virus” gene therapy products.
Sarepta argued that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim as the allegations relate to activities that fall within the “safe harbour” protection of the Hatch-Waxman Act.
The safe harbour provision holds that it is not an act of infringement to make, use, offer or sell a patented invention “solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products”.
Judge Andrews explained: “Before the Hatch-Waxman Act was enacted, any manufacture, use, or sale of a patented invention during the patent term was an act of infringement, even if it was for the sole purpose of obtaining Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory approval.”
Sarepta argued that its “infringing activities” were solely in order to secure a biologics license application from the FDA, and it was consequently protected under the “safe harbour” provision.
However, Regenxbio successfully argued that “safe harbour” does not apply here as a matter of law because the patented products are not subject to FDA premarket approval.
Judge Andrews ruled that Sarepta was not just using the patented cultured cells in order to introduce a generic competitor, but rather was using the ‘617 patent to “develop its own patentable product” and was therefore unable to claim “safe harbour” protection.
Judge Andrews denied Sarepta’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
Already registered?
Login to your account
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk