Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

Last updated

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 19, 2013
Decided June 24, 2013
Full case nameMutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Karen L. Bartlett
Docket no. 12-142
Citations570 U.S. 472 ( more )
133 S. Ct. 2466; 186 L. Ed. 2d 607; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4702; 81 U.S.L.W. 4538
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorSummary judgment granted in part, Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 731 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.N.H. 2010); motion for new trial denied, 760 F. Supp. 2d 220 (D.N.H. 2011); affirmed, 678 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1045(2012).
Holding
Generic drug manufactures cannot be held liable for damages under state law when it conflicts with federal law.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
DissentBreyer, joined by Kagan
DissentSotomayor, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. VI, Cl. 2

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that generic drug manufactures cannot be held liable under state law for not adequately labeling medication when federal law prohibits them from changing the label from the original brand name drug. [1]

Contents

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires that all drug manufacturers gain approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before engaging in interstate commerce. When a new brand name drug is created, the drug must be submitted under a New-Drug Application (NDA). In the NDA is a compilation of materials that must include a full report of all clinical investigations and all relevant studies. The NDA may only be approved by the FDA if they find that the drug is safe for use and the therapeutic benefits outweigh the drug's harm.

Because submitting an NDA is expensive and lengthy, the Congress set out to create an easier path for generic drugs to be issued to the public. Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. Under Hatch-Waxman a generic drug may be approved for use without the onerous provisions of an NDA provided the generic drug is identical to an already approved brand-name drug. Under Hatch-Waxman the generic drug manufacturer is prohibited from making any changes in the drug or from making any changes to the already approved label.

New Hampshire State Law imposes a duty on drug manufactures that the drugs they produce are not unreasonably unsafe. The safety of drugs is to be judged by a combination of its chemical properties and its warning label.

Case Background

In 1978 the FDA approved an anti-inflammatory pain reliever called sulindac under the brand name Clinoril. When the patent expired the FDA approved several generic versions including one manufactured by Mutual Pharmaceutical. The drugs have serious side-effects including hypersensitivity skin reactions with necrosis of the skin, toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens–Johnson syndrome.

In 2004 the respondent Karen Bartlett was given Clinoril for shoulder pain. The pharmacist dispensed a generic form made by Mutual Pharmaceutical. Bartlett soon developed toxic epidermal necrolysis, with sixty percent of her skin destroyed. She underwent months in medically induced coma, twelve eye surgeries and was tube fed for a year.

At the time of the incident the label did not specifically refer to developed toxic epidermal necrolysis but did warn of severe skin reactions, however toxic epidermal necrolysis was listed on the package insert

District Court

Bartlett sued in New Hampshire State Court, however Mutual was able to remove the case to Federal District Court. [2] Bartlett initially argued both failure-to-warn and design-defect claims. The District Court dismissed her failure-to-warn claim on her doctor’s own testimony that she had not read the box nor label. [3] On the claim of design-defect a jury found Mutual liable for over $21 million in damages. [4] Mutual appealed.

Appellate Court

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling. [5] It distinguished from an earlier case, PLIVA v. Mensing , in that generic drug makers could simply choose not to make the generic drugs and thus satisfy both State and Federal Laws.

Decision of the Court

The Court reversed the decision of the First Circuit with Justice Alito writing for the majority. The Court centered its opinion around the impossibility of a generic drug manufacturer both meeting its obligations under State law and Federal Law. Where such conflict exists, the court writes, Federal Law must take primacy under the Supremacy Clause.

Dissent

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Kagan dissented arguing that it was not totally impossible for the drug manufactures to comply with both State and Federal Law. He argued that the company could either choose not to do business in the State of New Hampshire or could accept that such damages are a cost of doing business.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg also dissented arguing that the majority had removed Mutual from the reach of common law liability. She also argued that Federal drug law should be looked at as complementary to State laws, rather than in competition with them.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food and Drug Administration</span> United States federal agency

The United States Food and Drug Administration is a federal agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the control and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, caffeine products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), cosmetics, animal foods & feed and veterinary products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stevens–Johnson syndrome</span> Skin disease

Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS) is a type of severe skin reaction. Together with toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) and Stevens–Johnson/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), it forms a spectrum of disease, with SJS being less severe. Erythema multiforme (EM) is generally considered a separate condition. Early symptoms of SJS include fever and flu-like symptoms. A few days later, the skin begins to blister and peel, forming painful raw areas. Mucous membranes, such as the mouth, are also typically involved. Complications include dehydration, sepsis, pneumonia and multiple organ failure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Generic drug</span> Pharmaceutical equivalent to a brand-name product

A generic drug is a pharmaceutical drug that contains the same chemical substance as a drug that was originally protected by chemical patents. Generic drugs are allowed for sale after the patents on the original drugs expire. Because the active chemical substance is the same, the medical profile of generics is equivalent in performance compared to their performance at the time when they were patented drugs. A generic drug has the same active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) as the original, but it may differ in some characteristics such as the manufacturing process, formulation, excipients, color, taste, and packaging.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Drug Application</span> Request US FDA approve new medications

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) New Drug Application (NDA) is the vehicle in the United States through which drug sponsors formally propose that the FDA approve a new pharmaceutical for sale and marketing. Some 30% or less of initial drug candidates proceed through the entire multi-year process of drug development, concluding with an approved NDA, if successful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Piroxicam</span> Chemical compound

Piroxicam is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) of the oxicam class used to relieve the symptoms of painful inflammatory conditions like arthritis. Piroxicam works by preventing the production of endogenous prostaglandins which are involved in the mediation of pain, stiffness, tenderness and swelling. The medicine is available as capsules, tablets and as a prescription-free gel 0.5%. It is also available in a betadex formulation, which allows a more rapid absorption of piroxicam from the digestive tract. Piroxicam is one of the few NSAIDs that can be given parenteral routes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Triamterene</span> Chemical compound

Triamterene is a potassium-sparing diuretic often used in combination with thiazide diuretics for the treatment of high blood pressure or swelling. The combination with hydrochlorothiazide, is known as hydrochlorothiazide/triamterene.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Erlotinib</span> EGFR inhibitor for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

Erlotinib, sold under the brand name Tarceva among others, is a medication used to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and pancreatic cancer. Specifically it is used for NSCLC with mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) — either an exon 19 deletion (del19) or exon 21 (L858R) substitution mutation — which has spread to other parts of the body. It is taken by mouth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moxifloxacin</span> Antibiotic

Moxifloxacin is an antibiotic, used to treat bacterial infections, including pneumonia, conjunctivitis, endocarditis, tuberculosis, and sinusitis. It can be given by mouth, by injection into a vein, and as an eye drop.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act</span> US law

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, is a 1984 United States federal law that established the modern system of generic drug regulation in the United States. The Act's two main goals are to facilitate entry of generic drugs into the market and to compensate the original drug developers for regulatory delays by the Food and Drug Administration. It is generally believed that the Act accomplished both goals: encouraging development of new medications and accelerating market entry of generics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sulindac</span> Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)

Sulindac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) of the arylalkanoic acid class that is marketed as Clinoril. Imbaral is another name for this drug. Its name is derived from sul(finyl)+ ind(ene)+ ac(etic acid) It was patented in 1969 and approved for medical use in 1976.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jay Lefkowitz</span> American lawyer (born 1962)

Jay Lefkowitz is an American lawyer. He is a senior partner at the Kirkland & Ellis law firm, and he also served as President George W. Bush's Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea.

Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F.2d 858, was a court case in the United States related to the manufacturing of generic pharmaceuticals.

Evergreening is any of various legal, business, and technological strategies by which producers extend the lifetime of their patents that are about to expire in order to retain revenues from them. Often the practice includes taking out new patents, or by buying out or frustrating competitors, for longer periods of time than would normally be permissible under the law. Robin Feldman, a law professor at UC Law SF and a leading researcher in intellectual property and patents, defines evergreening as "artificially extending the life of a patent or other exclusivity by obtaining additional protections to extend the monopoly period."

Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal regulatory approval of a medication does not shield the manufacturer from liability under state law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hydrocodone/ibuprofen</span> Combination drug

Hydrocodone/ibuprofen (INNs), sold under the brand name Vicoprofen, is a fixed-dose combination analgesic medication used in short-term therapy to relieve severe pain. Vicoprofen combines the analgesic and antitussive properties of hydrocodone with the analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic properties of ibuprofen. In contrast to hydrocodone/acetaminophen combination analgesics such as Vicodin, this hydrocodone/ibuprofen avoids some of the liver toxicity which may occur from acetaminophen, but still presents significant dangers in hydrocodone overdose, namely respiratory depression. Vicoprofen is supplied in a fixed dose combination tablet which contains hydrocodone bitartrate, USP 7.5 mg with ibuprofen, USP 200 mg. Additional strengths of generic Vicoprofen are now available, in combinations of 5 mg/200 mg and 10 mg/200 mg respectively.

The Food and Drug Administration is a federal agency of the United States, formed in 1930.

Reverse payment patent settlements, also known as "pay-for-delay" agreements, are a type of agreement that has been used to settle pharmaceutical patent infringement litigation, in which the company that has brought the suit agrees to pay the company it sued. That is, the patent holder pays the alleged infringer to stop its alleged infringing activity for some period of time and to stop disputing the validity of the patent. These agreements are distinct from most patent settlements, which usually involve the alleged infringer paying the patent holder.

FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement. Such an agreement is one in which a drug patentee pays another company, ordinarily a generic drug manufacturer, to stay out of the market, thus avoiding generic competition and a challenge to patent validity. The FTC sought to establish a rule that such agreements were presumptively illegal, but the Court ruled only that the FTC could bring a case under more general antitrust principles permitting a defendant to assert justifications for its actions under the rule of reason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Botanical drug</span> Plant ingredients marketed for treatment of a disease

A botanical drug is defined in the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as a botanical product that is marketed as diagnosing, mitigating, treating, or curing a disease; a botanical product in turn, is a finished, labeled product that contains ingredients from plants. Chemicals that are purified from plants, like paclitaxel, and highly purified products of industrial fermentation, like biopharmaceuticals, are not considered to be botanical products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adrenocorticotropic hormone (medication)</span> Chemical compound

Adrenocorticotropic hormone is used as a medication and as diagnostic agent in the ACTH stimulation test.

References

  1. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013).
  2. Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., No.1:08-cv-00358 ( D.N.H. Aug. 28, 2008).
  3. Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 731F. Supp. 2d135 ( D.N.H. 2010).
  4. Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 760F. Supp. 2d220 ( D.N.H. 2011).
  5. Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 678F.3d30 ( 1st Cir. 2012).