Life Sciences

As stakeholders and watchers of the expansive field of regenerative medicine likely are aware, earlier this year a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Cell Stem Cell reported on the growth of so-called stem cell clinics operating in the U.S.

Building on last year’s public workshops related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) and expanding its efforts to advance the Obama Administration’s Precision Medicine Initiative, the FDA late last week released two draft guidance documents on different aspects of NGS-based diagnostic tests.

On July 5, the Federal Circuit issued another important decision regarding the meaning of certain provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).

The United States Patent And Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memorandum on May 4, 2016 (May 2016 Memo) to the Patent Examining Corps to provide further Examiner instructions relating to subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In late January, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released the much anticipated Covered Outpatient Drugs Final Rule with Comment (the “AMP Final Rule”).

Mintz Levin’s Biosimilar webinar series continued this month with Linda Bentley and Joanne Hawana’s Biosimilars FDA/Regulatory Overview presentation on the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) and its implementation.

As our clients and friends know, each year Mintz Levin provides an analysis of the regulatory developments that impact public companies as they prepare for their fiscal year-end filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and their annual shareholder meetings.

The Massachusetts Division of Insurance (DOI) recently held a two-day hearing on rate changes proposed by Massachusetts health insurance plans to be effective for the second quarter of 2016 (Q2).

On November 12th and 13th, the Food and Drug Administration hosted genome scientists from across the nation at its campus in White Oak, Maryland.

Building on the momentum of early October hearings on the state’s growing health care expenditures, the Health Policy Commission (HPC), the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing, Governor Charlie Baker, and others spent the past two weeks crafting new policies for the industry and its consumers.

On July 21, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a key decision regarding the meaning of various provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). See Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Fed. Cir. Case No. 2015-1499.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not frequently issue Warning Letters to corporate sponsors of FDA-regulated clinical trials, so the June 16, 2015, Warning Letter sent to AB Science, a pharmaceutical company with offices in France and New Jersey, regarding the company’s conduct as a sponsor of several clinical trials is noteworthy.

In a confluence of IP and antitrust law, a three judge panel for the D.C. Circuit recently affirmed a lower court decision upholding the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) 2013 modification of regulations under the Hart Scott Rodino (“HSR”) Act to require reporting of even partial transfers of pharmaceutical patent rights as an “asset acquisition” if all commercially significant rights are transferred.

The heady days of 2012 saw “Gangnam Style” dominate the U.S. music charts, Patricia Krentcil rocket to fame as the “New Jersey Tanning Mom,” and the New York Giants win the Super Bowl.

In my post of April 2, Divided Supreme Court Restricts Provider Challenges to State Medicaid Rates, I wrote about the March 31st Supreme Court decision that providers may not sue in federal court over the adequacy of state Medicaid rates (See Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc. (“Exceptional Child Center”).

In an order released on March 19, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California denied Amgen’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as well as its request for a preliminary injunction to prevent Sandoz from marketing its drug Zarxio®.

On December 19, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued a private letter ruling (the “Ruling”) allowing corporations that manage physician practices through a so-called “friendly physician” arrangement to treat the physician practices as members of the corporations’ consolidated tax group for U.S. federal income tax purposes.