Tag: biotechnology

BIOSECURE Act: Anticipated Movement, Key Provisions, and Likely Impact

Last night, the House of Representatives passed the BIOSECURE Act (BIOSECURE or the Act) by a bipartisan vote of 306 to 81.

The BIOSECURE Act prohibits federal agencies from procuring or obtaining any biotechnology equipment or service produced or provided by a biotechnology company of concern. Subject to some exceptions, it also prohibits federal agencies from contracting with a company that uses equipment or services produced or provided by a biotechnology company of concern. Further, the Act prohibits recipients of a loan or grant from a federal agency from using federal funds to purchase equipment or services from a biotechnology company of concern.

The Senate version of BIOSECURE, sponsored by Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), was voted out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs with bipartisan support in March 2024. Given its passage in the House last night, the BIOSECURE Act is likely to be signed into law by the end of the year. The House version of BIOSECURE is likely to be the version that becomes law. President Biden is unlikely to veto the Act given its bipartisan support, his previous executive actions to support domestic biotechnology development, and his Administration’s approach towards competition with China.

The Act defines “biotechnology company of concern” as any entity that:

  • is subject to the jurisdiction, direction, control, or operates on behalf of the government of a foreign adversary (defined as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia);
  • is involved in the manufacturing, distribution, provision, or procurement of a biotechnology equipment or service; and
  • poses a risk to U.S. national security based on:
    • engaging in joint research with, being supported by, or being affiliated with a foreign adversary’s military, internal security forces, or intelligence agencies;
    • providing multiomic data obtained via biotechnology equipment or services to the government of a foreign adversary; or
    • obtaining human multiomic data via the biotechnology equipment or services without express and informed consent.

Somewhat unusually, the Act names specific Chinese companies as automatically qualifying as “biotechnology companies of concern”:

  • BGI (formerly known as the Beijing Genomics Institute);
  • MGI;
  • Complete Genomics;
  • WuXi AppTec; and
  • WuXi Biologics.

Both categories include any subsidiary, parent, affiliate, or successor entities of biotechnology companies of concern.

The Act also has very broad definitions of “biotechnology equipment or service.” The definition of equipment encompasses any machine, device, or subcomponent, including software that is “designed for use in the research, development, production, or analysis of biological materials.” The definition of services is similarly broad.

The BIOSECURE Act also requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to publish a list of additional biotechnology companies of concern. The list is prepared by the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretaries of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Commerce, Homeland Security, and State, as well as the Director of National Intelligence and National Cyber Director. This list of companies must be published by OMB within one year of BIOSECURE’s enactment and reviewed annually by OMB in consultation with the other Departments.

Guidance and Regulatory Authorities

OMB is also tasked with developing guidance and has 120 days from enactment of the statute to do so for the named companies. For the list of biotechnology companies of concern, OMB’s guidance must be established within 180 days after the development of the list.

Beyond OMB, the Act requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to incorporate its prohibitions. The FAR regulations must be issued within one year of when OMB establishes its guidance.

For named companies the Act’s prohibitions are effective 60 days after the issuance of the FAR regulations. For companies placed on the biotechnology company of concern list, the effective date for the Act’s prohibitions is 80 days after the issuance of FAR regulations.

Impact on Existing Business Relationships

In response to stakeholder concerns about disrupting existing commercial relationships and triggering delays in drug development, the House version of the BIOSECURE Act provides a five-year unwinding period for contracts and agreements entered into before the Act’s effective dates. Contracts entered into after the Act’s effective dates do not qualify for the five year unwinding period.

Process for Designating Companies

BIOSECURE specifies the process for designating a biotechnology company of concern. Critically, the Act does not require OMB to notify a company prior to the Department of Defense making the designation. Rather, a company will receive notice that it is being designated and placed on the biotechnology company of concern list. Moreover, the criteria for listing will only be provided “to the extent consistent with national security and law enforcement interests.” Thus, companies may face a circumstance where they are not provided the evidence supporting their designation.

Once a company receives the notice, it will have 90 days to submit information and arguments opposing the listing. The Act does not require a hearing or any formal administrative process. If practicable, the notice may also include steps the company could take to avoid being listed, but it is not required.

Safe Harbor, Waivers and Exceptions

The Act only has one safe harbor for biotechnology equipment or services that were formerly but no longer provided or produced by a biotechnology company of concern. This safe harbor seems intended to allow a biotechnology company of concern to sell their ownership of a product or service to another company without prohibitions applying to the new owner.

Agency heads may waive the Act’s prohibitions on a case-by-case basis, but only with the approval of OMB acting “in coordination with the Secretary of Defense.” Waivers must be reported to Congress within 30 days of being granted. The waiver may last for up to a year with an additional “one time” extension of 180 days allowed if an agency head determines it is “in the national security interests of the United States.” The 180-day extension must be approved by OMB and the agency head must notify and submit a justification to Congress within 10 days of the waiver being granted.

The Act has only two exceptions. First, its prohibitions do not apply to intelligence activities. Second, the prohibitions do not apply to health care services provided to federal employees, members of the armed services, and government contractors who are stationed in a foreign country or on official foreign travel.

Impact and Considerations for Clients

1. Increased Risk of Partnerships with Chinese Companies and Researchers:

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that receive federal funding or contract with federal agencies should be prepared to wind down business ties to biotechnology companies in China. Impacted companies need to begin evaluating the risk to their supply chains, manufacturing capacity, and R&D pipelines in the event a business partner is listed.

Universities in the United States and other research institutes that receive federal funding will also need to undertake a similar assessment of their research partners and collaborators based in China.

2. Loss of CDMO capacity:

Wuxi App Tec is a large, global provider of contract development and manufacturing (CDMO) services to the life sciences industry. According to the New York Times “[b]y one estimate Wuxi has been involved in developing one-fourth of the drugs used in the United States.” BIOSECURE would effectively ban Wuxi from conducting business in the United States, and if passed, risks causing delays, shortages, and cost increases as companies seek to transition to other CDMOs. It will likely take years for competitors to replace the lost CDMO capacity.

3. Fate of Wuxi U.S. Facilities:

Wuxi has a large presence in the United States. It operates 12 facilities and employs almost 2,000 people. Normally, Wuxi would be expected to sell its U.S.-based facilities. However, based on Tiktok’s experience, it is unclear if the Government of China will permit Wuxi to sell its facilities as opposed to dismantling and/or relocating facilities outside of the United States.

4. OMB’s Management of Biotechnology Companies of Concern List

OMB does not typically manage processes like the one envisioned by BIOSECURE. How OMB interprets the broad criteria for listing companies will be critical. Which Departments, beyond the Department of Defense, will have the greatest influence on OMB’s decision making and how open OMB is to evidence from companies seeking to avoid listing will also need to be watched closely. Until OMB starts preparing its guidance and the FAR regulations are proposed, it is hard to anticipate the rate at which new companies will be added to the list. How the process established by BIOSECURE will interact with or leverage existing entity lists will be another development to closely monitor.

5. Retaliation by China

BIOSECURE’s passage is likely to trigger a response from the Government of China. Responses could range from imposing its own export controls to using the country’s sweeping national security laws to harass United States businesses and their employees. Companies doing business in China, particularly those in the pharmaceutical or biotech industries need to be prepared.

© 2024 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more on Biotechnology, visit the NLR Biotech Food Drug section

EPA, USDA, and FDA to Clarify Overlapping Biotechnology Regulatory Frameworks

On May 8, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a joint plan to identify areas of ambiguity, gaps, or uncertainty in their coordinated regulation of biotechnology products. Consistent with a directive issued by President Biden in September 2022, the agencies’ plan identifies specific issues that each has either recently addressed or will work to address to promote such products’ safe use.

Key Takeaways

  • What Happened: EPA, USDA, and FDA issued a joint plan for regulatory reform under their Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.
  • Who’s Impacted: Developers of PIPs, modified mosquitos, biopesticides, and other biotechnology products under EPA’s jurisdiction.
  • What Should They Consider Doing in Response: Watch the three agencies’ regulatory dockets closely and consider submitting comments once new rules or draft guidance are published that may affect their products.

Background

President Biden’s executive order defined “biotechnology” as “technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.” Biotechnology products thus may include organisms (plants, animals, fungi, or microbes) developed through genetic engineering or manipulation, products derived from such organisms, and products produced via cell-free synthesis. These products may, in turn, be regulated under the overlapping statutory frameworks of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Federal Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), Plant Pest Act (PPA), Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act, and more. Therefore, close coordination between EPA, USDA, and FDA is essential to ensure effective and efficient regulation of biotechnology products.

EPA Sets Sights on PIPs, Mosquitos, and Biopesticide Products

The agencies’ newly released plan identifies five biotechnology product categories where regulatory clarification or simplification are warranted: (1) modified plants; (2) modified animals; (3) modified microorganisms; (4) human drugs, biologics, and medical devices; and (5) cross-cutting issues. Under the new plan, EPA is engaged in all but the fourth category above.

For example, EPA has already taken steps to clarify its regulation of modified plant products, such as exempting from regulation under FIFRA and FFDCA certain plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) created in plants using newer technologies. EPA next plans to address the scope of plant regulator PIPs and update its 2007 guidance on small-scale field testing of PIPs to reflect technological developments and harmonize with USDA containment measures.

Regarding modified animal products, EPA intends to work with USDA and FDA to coordinate and provide updated information on the regulation of modified insect and invertebrate pests. Specifically, EPA intends to provide efficacy testing guidance on genetically modified mosquitos intended for population control. As outlined in guidance published by FDA in October 2017, products intended to reduce the population of mosquitoes by killing them or interfering with their growth or development are considered “pesticides” subject to regulation by EPA, while products intended to reduce the virus/pathogen load within mosquitoes or prevent mosquito-borne disease in humans or animals are considered “new animal drugs” subject to regulation by FDA.

EPA also now intends to prioritize its review of biopesticide applications, provide technical assistance to biopesticide developers, and collaborate with state pesticide regulators to help bring new biopesticide products to market more quickly.

Further, the three agencies are making efforts to collaborate with each other and with the regulated community. The agencies jointly released plain-language information on regulatory roles, responsibilities, and processes for biotechnology products in November 2023 and now intend to explore the development of a web portal that would direct developers to the appropriate agency or office overseeing their product’s development or regulatory status. The agencies also intend to develop a mechanism for a product developer to meet with all agencies at once early in a product’s development process to clarify the agencies’ respective jurisdictions and provide initial regulatory guidance; to update their joint information-sharing memorandum of understanding; and to formally update the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology by the end of the year.

Biotechnology product developers should closely monitor EPA, USDA, and FDA’s progress on the actions described above, as well as other USDA- and FDA-specific regulatory moves. Developers should assess the regulatory barriers to their products’ entry to market, consider potential fixes, and be prepared to submit feedback as the agencies propose new rules or issue draft guidance for comment.

© 2024 Beveridge & Diamond PC
For more news on EPA, USDA, and FDA guidance, visit the NLR Administrative & Regulatory section.

New Cosmetic Regulatory Requirements: What Cosmetic Manufacturers Need to Know

On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed into law the “Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act of 2022,”1 which requires increased Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of cosmetics and the ingredients in them. This GT Alert outlines the law’s key provisions, including timelines for FDA actions and enforcement. The law creates new requirements that may generate increased consumer litigation. This GT Alert summarizes the Act’s provisions and does not constitute legal advice. Many provisions are subject to regulatory implementation by a date provided for in the Act.

The new law also includes amendments modifying other FDA requirements. In particular, the law modifies the law as to issues such as improvements and innovations in drug manufacturing, reauthorization of key FDA programs such as the Humanitarian Device Exemption Incentive, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Program, and Reauthorization of Orphan Drug Grants. There are also modifications to biologics and drugs, as well as modifications of the Save Medical Device amendments. For information on the potential litigation impacts of the new law, please see this GT Alert published by the Pharmaceutical, Medical Device & Health Care Litigation Practice.

Modernization of Cosmetic Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA)

MoCRA, the new cosmetic regulation law, establishes a process, similar to those for other FDA-regulated products, that ensures the cosmetic manufacturers provide assurances that the cosmetic products are safe. This GT Alert provides general information on these new requirements, with effective dates for certain regulatory and other requirements. The law establishes obligations on the “responsible person” that is, the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of a cosmetic and those whose name appears on the products label.

MoCRA is only applicable to importers and entities that manufacture or process cosmetic products. It does not apply to the following entities if they do not import, manufacturer, or process cosmetics: beauty salons; cosmetic product retailers; distribution facilities; pharmacies; hospitals; physicians offices; health care clinics; public health agencies and other nonprofit entities; entities that provide complimentary cosmetic products; trade shows and others giving free samples; entities that are only doing research; and entities that prepare labels, relabel, package, repackage, hold, and/or distribute cosmetic products.

Key Terms

Good Manufacturing Practices: The secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (through the FDA) will propose and finalize regulations to establish good manufacturing practices. The key is to ensure that products are not adulterated and will allow FDA to inspect records to ensure compliance. The proposed rulemaking shall be no later than two years after date of enactment (December 29, 2022) with final regulations no later than three years after date of enactment (December 29, 2022).

Adverse Events: Any health-related event associated with the use of a cosmetic product.

Serious Adverse Event: Any event that is a result of death, life-threatening experience; inpatient hospitalization; persistent or significant disability or incapacity; a congenital anomaly or birth defect; and infection or significant disfigurement OR requires, based on reasonable medical judgment, a medical or surgical intervention to prevent an outcome described in the first definition of serious adverse event.

Process for Reporting Adverse Events: In compliance with the HHS secretary’s regulations, the responsible person shall file a report within 15 days and may supplement the report within one year. A serious adverse event report is similar to other safety reports and can include a statement released to the public (without any personal health information). The HHS secretary may exempt certain reports that do not involve a significant public health issue. Records must be kept by the responsible person for six years; three years for small businesses. There is a Rule of Construction that the submission of any report shall not be construed as an admission that the cosmetic product involved, caused, or contributed to the relevant adverse event.

  • Fragrance and Flavor Ingredients: If an ingredient(s) has caused or contributed to a serious adverse event, the HHS secretary may request a list of such ingredients, and such list must be provided within 30 days of the request.

  • Safety Substantiation: Records must be maintained that demonstrates adequate substantiation of the safety of the cosmetic product. Adequate substantiation means tests, studies, or other evidence to support a reasonable certainty that the product is safe.

Inspection: The responsible person shall permit an officer or HHS employee (with credentials) to have access to inspect records, manufacturing and other issues.

Registration and Product Listing: Cosmetic manufacturers must submit a registration no later than ONE YEAR AFTER ENACTMENT (December 29, 2022). New facilities must register within 60 days (or 60 days after deadline). Renewal is every two years. Updates or changes must be submitted within 60 days of the change. The content of the information required for registration is outlined in the law. The registering company must also list all cosmetic products it imports, manufactures, or processes and include product category or categories, list of ingredients (fragrances, flavors, or colors), and product listing number (if previously assigned). Flexibility is given to the listing of multiple products with identical formulations or those that differ only to colors, fragrances, flavors, or quantity. Annual updates are to be submitted. FDA will withhold confidential information included in a listing when a request for information is filed.

The HHS secretary may suspend a cosmetic entity’s registration if there is a reasonable probability that a product is causing serious adverse health or deaths, and the secretary has reasonable belief that other products made or processes may also be affected and for which health concerns are raised about the products manufactured. Notice of suspension is to be provided and an opportunity within five days to provide corrective action; or a hearing may be held. The secretary may conclude (a) the suspension remains necessary or (b) the registrant must submit a corrective action plan to demonstrate remediation of the problem conditions. The plan will be reviewed not later than 14 business days or such other time agreed upon by the parties. If the secretary vacates the suspension, FDA will then reinstate the registration. If the facility is suspended, no person shall introduce or deliver in the United States cosmetic products from such facility. The secretary can only delegate this authority to the FDA Commissioner.

Labeling: Each cosmetic product shall have a label that includes a domestic address, domestic phone number, or electronic contact information. In addition, the following applies to labeling.

  • Fragrance Allergens: The responsible person shall identify on the label each fragrance allergen included. The secretary shall propose a rule on June 29, 2024 (18 months after date of enactment) and final rule 180 days after the public comment period closes. The secretary shall consider international, state, and local requirements for allergen disclosure and threshold amount levels.

  • Cosmetic Products for Professional Use: A professional is an individual licensed by a state authority to practice in the field of cosmetology, nail care, barbering, or esthetics.

  • Professional Use Labeling: A cosmetic product introduced into interstate commerce and intended to be used only by a professional shall bear a label that contains a clear and prominent statement that the product shall be administered for use only by a licensed professional; and is in conformity with the requirements for cosmetics labeling.

Records: Records are to be available to authorized personnel to examine products if there is reason to believe a cosmetic product is adulterated or an ingredient could cause harm or run afoul of other standards. The authorized personnel must provide written notice to have access to records at a reasonable time to determine whether the product poses a threat. The records to be reviewed do not include recipes or formulas for cosmetics, financial data, pricing data, personnel data (except qualifications) research data (other than safety substantiation) or sales data (other than shipment data regarding sales).

  • Rule of Construction: Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the secretary’s ability to inspect records or require establishment and maintenance of records under any other provision of the law.

Mandatory Recall Authority: If the secretary determines there is a reasonable probability that a cosmetic is adulterated or misbranded and the use or exposure will cause serious adverse health consequences or death, the secretary shall provide the cosmetic manufacturer an opportunity to voluntarily cease distribution and recall such article. If the entity refuses or does not recall the cosmetic within the time and manner prescribed, the secretary may order that the product not be distributed.

  • Hearing: A hearing may be held, no later than 10 days after the date of issuance. A process for resolution is provided by the law to either recall the product and cease distribution based on evidence provided or permit the product to continue distribution. Notice to affected individuals may be required.

  • Public Notification: If a recall is required, a press release is to be published, and alerts and public notices are to be issued, as appropriate. The materials must include the name of the cosmetic; a description of the risk; to the extent practicable, information for consumers about similar cosmetics that are not affected by the recall and ensure publication on the FDA website of the image of the cosmetic. The secretary can only delegate this authority to the Commissioner of the FDA.

  • Rule of Construction: Nothing in this section shall affect the authority of the secretary to request or participate in a voluntary recall or to issue an order to cease distribution or to recall under any other provision of this chapter.

Small Businesses: Responsible persons and owners and operators of facilities whose gross annual sales in the United States of cosmetic products for the previous three-year period is less than $1,000,000 shall be considered small business and not subject to Good Manufacturing Practices, registration, and listing requirements.

  • Exemptions: The small business exceptions do NOT apply to (1) cosmetic products that contact the mucus membrane of the eye under conditions of use that are customary or usual; (2) products that are injected; (3) products that are intended for internal use; or (4) products that are intended to alter appearance for more than 24 hours under conditions of use that are customary or usual, and removal by the consumer is not a part of such conditions of use that are customary or usual.

Preemption. No state or political subdivision of a state may establish any law, regulation, order, or other requirement for cosmetics that is different for registration and product listing, good manufacturing practice, records, recalls, adverse event reporting or safety substantiation. Nothing prevents any state from prohibiting the use of an ingredient in a cosmetic product, or continuing requirement of any state in effect at time of enactment.

  • Savings Clause: Nothing in the amendments shall be construed to modify, preempt, or displace any action for damages or the liability of any person under the law of any state, whether statutory or based in common law.

Talc-containing cosmetics: The HHS secretary shall propose regulations one year after December 29, 2022 and finalize the rules 180 days after the comment period to establish testing for detecting asbestos in talc products.

(1) Not later than one year after date of enactment of this act, the secretary shall promulgate proposed regulations to establish and require standardized testing methods for detecting and identifying asbestos in talc-containing cometic products and

(2) Not later than 180 days after the date on which the public comment period on the proposed regulations closes, the secretary shall issue such final regulations.

PFAS in Cosmetic. The HHS secretary shall assess the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetic products and the scientific evidence regarding the safety in cosmetic products, including risks. The secretary may consult with the National Center for Toxicological Research. Report must be issued not later than three years after enactment summarizing the results of the assessment conducted.

Sense of the Congress on animal testing: It is the sense of the Congress that animal testing should not be used for the purposes of safety testing on cosmetic products and should be phased out except for appropriate allowances.

Funding: $14,200,000 for 2023, 25,960,000 for 2024, and $41,890,000 for 2025-2027 have been identified for these activities. The new law provides no industry user fees.

FOOTNOTES

1 This legislation was included in H.R. 2617, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023,” as part of a year-end bill.

Article By Nancy E. Taylor and Eleanor (Miki) A. Kolton of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Office of Science and Technology Policy Requests Public Input on Biotechnology Regulation

  • The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a request for information (RFI) today in which it invites public comment on the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (the “Coordinated Framework”).
  • The Coordinated Framework, which is a Federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology products, was first issued in 1986, updated in 1992— to affirm that federal regulation should focus on characteristics of the product and the environment into which it being introduced, and not on the process by which it is produced—and then updated again in 2017 to clarify the roles of EPA, FDA, and USDA. And, in September of this year, Executive Order 14081 directed the three agencies to clarify and streamline regulations to support the safe of use of biotechnology products.
  • Accordingly, the RFI requests comment on seven questions related to the Coordinated Framework. The questions include a request for comment on identification of any regulatory gaps, inefficiencies, or uncertainties; data or information to improve any identified issues; and new or emerging biotechnology products that the agencies should be prepared to address. Comments to the RFI are due by February 3, 2023. Also, on January 12, 2023, OTSP will host a virtual event in which it will listen to public feedback on the RFI.

Article By Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman

For more food, drug, and biotechnology legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Biotechnology: Case Studies of Hypothetical, Genetically Engineered Organism

Discussed at Second Meeting on Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products to Illustrate Agencies’ Roles and Responsibilities

On March 9, 2016, the second public meeting on the July 2, 2015, memorandum entitled “Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products,” was convened in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Region 6 Office in Dallas, Texas.  Representatives from EPA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) discussed their current roles and responsibilities regarding biotechnology products under the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology (CF) by reviewing case studies of hypothetical products.

Two documents were released prior to the public meeting:  (1) Table of the oversight of biotechnology products and relevant coordination across EPA, FDA, and USDA; and (2) Regulation of Biotechnology Products — Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities through Hypothetical Case Studies.  A copy of the agenda is available here.

According to OSTP’s blog item on the meeting, the table document summarizes current responsibilities and the relevant coordination across USDA, EPA, and FDA for the regulatory oversight of biotechnology products.  OSTP cautions that it should not be interpreted as a guarantee that specific products in any of the product areas described in the table have been in the past, or will be in the future, determined to be safe by the relative regulatory agencies.

The case studies document states that its intention is to provide general information to developers who believe they have, or are uncertain as to whether they may have, a biotechnology product that is subject to regulation under one or more of the federal laws described in the CF.  It also demonstrates how an innovator might navigate the regulatory framework, starting from research activities in the laboratory to full commercialization of the product.  OSTP states that all of the case studies are of hypothetical products, selected because they cover multiple biotechnology product areas with different characteristics and intended uses, and because they illustrate how agencies coordinate their oversight under the CF.  The case studies discussed included the following hypothetical, genetically engineered organisms:

1. Corn, a field crop used for food.  In the first case study, corn with pesticidal properties is engineered with a plant pest component to have pesticidal activity against certain insects.

2. Plum, a fruit tree/crop used as food.  In the second case study, plum with pesticidal properties is genetically engineered without a plant pest component to resist a fungus.

3. Canola, a field crop, used as food.  In the third case study, herbicide-tolerant Canola is genetically engineered with a plant pest component to tolerate an already registered herbicide.

4. Rose, an ornamental plant.  In the fourth case study, a rose is genetically engineered with a plant pest component to increase the production of a pigment in its petals.

5. Microbial Pesticide, a bacterium that is not considered a plant pest.  In the fifth case study, a microbial pesticide is genetically engineered to enhance its pesticidal properties.

6. Microbial Pesticide, a phytopathogenic bacterium.  In the sixth case study, a microbial pesticide that is genetically engineered to express a pesticidal substance that protects against insects.

7. Algae for Biofuels.  In the seventh case study, a unicellular alga is genetically engineered with a plant pest component to produce industrial oils for conversion into biofuels.

8. Rabbit, an animal.  In the eighth case study, a rabbit is genetically engineered to make a therapeutic protein (recombinant insulin) for treatment of humans lacking this protein activity.

The first public engagement session took place on October 30, 2015, at FDA’s White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland.  A transcript from the meeting is available online.  The third public meeting will be held on March 30, 2016, at the University of California, Davis Conference Center in Davis, California.

Article By

Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Practice Group Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
©2016 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Health Officials’ Latest Tool in Tool Box – Whole Genome Sequencing

In late October, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), along with state and local officials investigated an outbreak of E. coli infections linked to food served at a major fast-casual restaurant chain. Much of the underlying information documenting the outbreak has been derived from an advanced laboratory technique called “whole genome sequencing” (WGS). This is a fairly new instrument in the CDC toolbox. WGS reveals the complete DNA make-up of an organism, thereby enabling health officials to better understand variations both within and between potentially pathogenic species. Such information can then be compared with clinical isolates from sick patients, and, if they match, there may be a reliable link established between the illness and the pathogen. This new technique has the potential to define the scope of a foodborne illness outbreak more quickly and ideally will help to prevent additional cases. Traditionally, this analysis has been done via a process known as pulse-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). But PFGE has a shortcoming in that it is unable to differentiate between related species of organisms, which can be critical when health officials are trying to delineate the specific source of the outbreak, and want to know whether to recall a product or not.

The FDA cites numerous examples of how it has used WGS: 1

  • To differentiate sources of contamination, even within the same outbreak;

  • To determine which ingredient in a multi-ingredient food harbored the pathogen associated with an illness outbreak;

  • To narrow the search for the source of a contaminated ingredient;

  • As a clue to the possible source of illnesses; and

  • To determine unexpected vectors for food contamination.

The use of techniques such as WGS reflects FDA’s shift toward a broader preventative-centric approach to food safety. This approach can be associated the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed into law on January 4, 2011, which requires comprehensive, science-based preventive controls across the food supply.2 FSMA provides the FDA with new enforcement authorities designed to achieve higher rates of compliance with prevention-based and risk-based food safety standards, and to better respond to and contain problems when they do occur. Lastly, the law also gives the FDA important new tools to hold imported foods to the same standards as domestic foods and directs FDA to build an integrated national food safety system in partnership with state and local authorities.

WGS also has been employed in the context of recent illness outbreaks associated with products regulated by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which oversees the safety of meat and poultry. In some circumstances involving FSIS, the regulated industry has found itself on the receiving end of confusing scientific input, as regulatory recommendations based upon PFGE analysis were subsequently negated by WGS data.

A shift to WGS may allow health officials to more quickly and more precisely connect the dots during an outbreak, and use of this tool may also benefit the regulated community. The enhanced precision of WGS may provide the regulated community with a new ability to prevent being falsely labeled as the source of the outbreak. Under the prior testing regime, PFGE tests were often unable to differentiate between related species of organisms, and as a result, regulators were at times forced to cast an overly wide net to capture the source of an outbreak. The new WGS technique provides authorities with a more precise and accurate tool. But, as circumstances with FSIS suggest, companies may also encounter confusion over growing pains associated with the movement from one generation of technology to another. We will continue to monitor the development and use of new tools and techniques the FDA, FSIS, and other federal agencies are using to prevent and respond to food safety issues.

ARTICLE BY Robert G. Hibbert of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

1 Food and Drug Administration, Examples of How FDA Has Used Whole Genome Sequencing of Foodborne Pathogens For Regulatory Purposes, (last visited Nov. 9, 2015).
2 FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 111-353, 124 Stat. 3885 (2001). 

Amicus Briefs On Biosimilar Patent Litigation

Foley and Lardner LLP

Amgen has appealed the district court decision denying its motion for a preliminary injunction to keep Sandoz’ biosimilar version of Neupogen® off the market. The appeal is on an expedited briefing schedule at the Federal Circuit, and three amicus briefs have been filed. All of the amicus briefs argue for reversal of at least some of the district court’s decision regarding the biosimilar patent litigation framework of the BPCIA.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization

The Biotechnology Industry Organization filed an amicus brief arguing that the BPCIA should be interpreted as requiring “notice to the reference product sponsor of the initial submission of the biosimilar application” and “notice of potential commercial marketing upon approval.” BIO argues that these procedures must be mandatory in order for the patent dispute resolution provisions of the law to achieve their purpose of “provid[ing] a significant and real opportunity to resolve patent issues prior to the launch of the biosimilar.”

Abbvie Inc.

AbbVie Inc. filed an amicus brief arguing that “the notice-and-exchange provisions are mandatory” and that a biosimilar applicant’s “failure to comply with the statute is unlawful.” According to AbbVie, if the district court decision is upheld “the entire biosimilar litigation process would become a free-for-all, where biosimilar companies would utilize the data and work of innovator companies but refuse to provide basic information about their products … leaving innovators to blindly guess as to which patents they should sue on and when.”

AbbVie also argues that the BPCIA does not preempt Amgen’s state law claims of unfair competition.

Janssen Biotech, Inc.

Janssen Biotech, Inc. filed an amicus brief asking the Federal Circuit to “clarify that the statutory patent dispute resolution procedures are intended to be followed as written, and are not merely optional choices or empty formalities.” Janssen criticizes the district court decision for “transforming [the BPCIA’s patent provisions] from a carefully orchestrated dispute resolution process into a series of strategic options existing for the sole benefit of the biosimilar applicant.”

Janssen also urges the Federal Circuit to decide that the notice of commercial marketing required by the BPCIA may not be provided before a biosimilar product is licensed by the FDA. One argument Janssen makes on this point is that the notice of commercial marketing gives the reference product sponsor the right to seek a preliminary injunction based on alleged patent infringement, but a preliminary injunction cannot be granted unless commercial launch is imminent, and commercial launch is not possible until the biosimilar has been licensed by the FDA.

The Expedited Appeal Schedule 

Amgen filed its opening brief on April 3. Sandoz filed its brief on April 21. Oral arguments are scheduled for June 3.

ARTICLE BY

Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff
Foley & Lardner LLP

Replication without Human Intervention: Lessons from Monsanto v. Bowman

VedderPriceLogo

Until now, the practicing of an invention needed some direct form of human action; someone was needed to “do something” to bring the invention into existence, as well as replicate it by making more (in the case of a physical object) or performing it again (in the case of a method). However, this may no longer be necessary in all instances. At least in the case of some biological technologies, once an invention has been created by a human, further human intervention may no longer be needed for replicating the invention. In these instances, does a patent owner lose the right to exclude future uses, sales, offers for sale or importations of such an invention?

In Monsanto v. Bowman, the Supreme Court is poised to bring some clarity to this question. Monsanto Company designs and manufactures herbicide-resistant soybean seeds and related technology. Monsanto sold patented seeds to farmers for growing and resale as commodity items to be used in such things as public-school lunches and animal feed. Such sales were made under license agreements that allowed the beans to be sold without any ongoing restrictions on the use of those beans.

Vernon Bowman is a soybean farmer. Bowman purchased these beans and replanted them as second-generation seeds, which were the products of seeds purchased from a licensed Monsanto technology distributor.

Monsanto sued Bowman for patent infringement, arguing that the beans were products of Monsanto’s patented herbicide-resistant seeds and that, by planting them instead of purchasing new seeds, Bowman violated the Monsanto Technology Agreement for the seeds. The U.S. District Court found that Bowman’s activities infringed upon Monsanto’s patent and awarded damages to Monsanto for violation of its patented technology. The Federal Circuit agreed and upheld the decision, holding that Monsanto’s patent covered both the original seeds and a product of the original seeds, such as those second-generation beans grown by Bowman.

Bowman appealed, arguing that, under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, Monsanto’s patent rights were exhausted upon its initial sale of the seeds that Bowman later purchased from the licensed distributor, and that use of progeny seeds is an expected use of the product. In response, Monsanto argued that in the case of self-replicating technologies, such as seeds that grow and produce more seeds, the patent extends to the underlying technology (i.e., herbicide resistance) and not only to the seed itself.

The important question raised in this case is whether an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies is needed and/or warranted. While this question is clearly important to the biotechnology and agricultural industries, it also has the potential to significantly affect the software and robotics industries. For example, as robotics and artificial intelligence become increasingly sophisticated in their abilities to adapt and “grow,” it does not seem too outlandish to think that, one day, these may also become self-replicating technologies.

Article By:

 of

Supreme Court Invalidates Biotech Method Patent in Mayo v. Prometheus

Recently an article by Richard G. Gervase, Jr. and Daniel W. Clarke, Ph.D. of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding Biotech Patents recently appeared in The National Law Review:

On March 20, 2012, the United States Supreme Court handed down a groundbreaking decision in the field of biotechnology; however, the repercussions of this decision will be felt throughout the patent community. In a highly anticipated decision, the Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Mayo Collaborative Services and Mayo Clinic Rochester v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., unanimously finding that process claims directed to optimizing the dosage of a drug for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder are invalid because they effectively claim no more than an underlying law of nature.

The two patents at issue are exclusively licensed to Prometheus, who sells diagnostic tests that employ the patented processes. At first, Mayo bought and used these diagnostic tests; however, in 2004, Mayo decided to use and sell a slightly different diagnostic test. Prometheus responded by bringing an infringement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, which found that although Mayo infringed a claim of a Prometheus-licensed patent, the asserted claims were invalid for being drawn to non-statutory subject matter. The District Court reasoned that the patents claimed “natural laws or natural phenomena,” which are not entitled to patent protection. Specifically, the District Court opined that the correlations between metabolite levels and the toxicity and efficacy of drug dosages are patent-ineligible laws of nature. The Federal Circuit reversed, and held that the claims were directed to patent-eligible subject matter because they “transform an article into a different state or thing,” and the transformation was “central to the purpose of the claimed process.” The Federal Circuit subsequently reaffirmed this decision on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in view ofBilski v. Kappos.

The question presented to the Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus was “whether the claimed processes have transformed unpatentable natural laws into patent-eligible applications of those laws.” The Court recognized that the threshold inquiry to determine whether a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 101, which provides “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

The representative claim analyzed by the Court was directed to methods of calibrating the optimal dosage of a thiopurine drug by administering the drug, and determining the level of subsequent metabolites, where certain metabolite levels correlate with certain results. The Court relied on case precedent, including Diamond v. Diehr and Gottschalk v. Benson, for the proposition that the meaning of “process” in § 101 has been limited to exclude fundamental principles, such as “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas,” but noted that “an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.” The Court concluded that the claims were not patent eligible, reasoning that the claims were merely instructions to apply a natural law, i.e., a natural correlation.

Specifically, the Court stated that the additional steps of “administering” and “determining,” along with the “wherein” clauses, “add nothing specific to the laws of nature other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, previously engaged in by those in the field.”

Although the Court recognized that in determining whether additional claim steps are routine or conventional, a § 102 novelty inquiry and a § 101 statutory subject matter inquiry “might sometimes overlap,” Justice Breyer repeatedly emphasized that from a policy perspective, a patent should not preempt natural correlations, thereby improperly inhibiting future innovation. The Court also warned that a non-statutory law of nature cannot be transformed into subject matter that is eligible for patent protection by mere clever claim drafting that amounts to no more than “insignificant post-solution activity.”

How the Supreme Court’s decision will impact medical diagnostic patents and patent applications in the future remains to be seen. We note that the Court declined to opine on the desirability of increased protection for diagnostic correlations, inviting Congress to develop “more finely tailored rules” for patent eligibility should the legislature disagree with the Court’s conclusion.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.