On August 13, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision on the issue of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) and patent-term adjustment (PTA) in Allergan USA, Inc. et al., v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., et al., No. 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024). While the decision also addressed other issues, this update focuses on summarizing the Court’s holding on the ODP issue.
Delaware Law
Delaware Court of Chancery Opines on Meaning of ‘Commercially Reasonable Efforts’ in Pharmaceutical Earn-Out Provision
Ryan Murr, Karen Spindler, Todd Trattner, Marina Szteinbok and Artin Au-Yeung are the authors of “Delaware Court of Chancery Opines on Meaning of ‘Commercially Reasonable Efforts’ in Pharmaceutical Earn-Out Provision” [PDF] published by the Deal Lawyers in its May-June 2024 issue.
Delaware Court of Chancery Opines on the Meaning of “Commercially Reasonable Efforts” in a Pharmaceutical Earn-Out Provision
Observations and drafting suggestions for CRE terms in merger agreements, licenses, and royalty purchase agreements.
On April 30, 2024, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that the buyer in a life sciences merger and its successor had not breached their contractual obligations under an earn-out provision to use commercially reasonable efforts (“CRE”) to achieve regulatory approvals for a pharmaceutical product. In Himawan, et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., Vice Chancellor Glasscock found that the merger agreement’s definition of CRE for purposes of the earn-out provision, which referred to the efforts of a company with substantially the same resources and expertise as the buyer, required the Court to analyze whether a reasonable actor faced with the circumstances would continue to pursue the development of a drug that had failed to meet one of its co-primary endpoints in an earlier clinical trial.[1]