Court of Federal Claims Archives

Hatch-Waxman Litigation Expenses Are Deductible Under Internal Revenue Code § 162(a)

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a US Court of Federal Claims ruling that Hatch-Waxman Act litigation expenses are ordinary and necessary business expenses under § 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, entitling an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) filer to deduct litigation expenses incurred defending against a patent infringement lawsuit. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc. v. United States, Case No. 23-1320 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2025) (Chen, Cunningham, Stark, JJ.)

Actavis filed ANDAs with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking approval to market and sell a generic version of a drug already offered for sale in the United States. Per the Hatch-Waxman Act, filing an ANDA is an act of patent infringement where the ANDA holder seeks FDA approval prior to the expiration of the new drug application (NDA) holder’s patent. Following Actavis’s filing, the NDA holder brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Actavis.

Actavis subsequently treated litigation expenses incurred in defending the patent infringement lawsuit as ordinary and necessary expenses. Actavis deducted those litigation expenses on its tax returns for that year. However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) considered these expenses to be nondeductible capital expenditures since they were incurred “in pursuit of an intangible capital asset: namely, FDA approval to lawfully market a generic drug product in this country.”

Actavis eventually paid its tax liability but then sued the IRS in the Court of Federal Claims to recover what Actavis considered an overpayment of its taxes. The claims court agreed with Actavis, holding that Hatch-Waxman litigation expenses were deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. The IRS appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. When determining whether Hatch-Waxman litigation expenses are deductible under Code § 162(a), the Federal Circuit uses two tests to settle the issue: the “origin of the claim” test and the “most significant benefit” test. However, as the Court emphasized, regardless of which test applied, Actavis prevailed.

The Federal Circuit first explained that Actavis prevailed under either test because patent infringement (not the FDA approval process) is what triggers incurring litigation expenses. Further evidence that the “origin of the claim rests in the patentholder’s decision to sue, and not in the ANDA filer’s decision to seek drug approval from the FDA, is the fact that infringement litigation cannot provide the ANDA filer what it wants – only the FDA can,” the Court stated.

Relying on the Third Circuit’s 2023 decision in Mylan v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, the Federal Circuit delved into the fairness aspect of allowing Hatch-Waxman litigation expenses to be deductible. Citing Mylan, the Court explained that generic manufacturers defending against patent infringement suits “obtain no rights from a successful outcome. They acquire neither the intangible asset of a patent nor an FDA approval.” The Court also noted that brand-name drug companies in Hatch-Waxman lawsuits may deduct litigation expenses incurred while enforcing their patent rights. “[I]mposing very different tax treatment on the warring sides in an ANDA dispute, as the Commissioner advocates, is at odds with the careful statutory [...]

Continue Reading

Uncle Sam Can March In: Government Licenses Under Bayh-Dole Aren’t Subject to “Strict Timing Requirements”

In an appeal from the US Court of Federal Claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a determination that 35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(4), a provision of the Bayh-Dole Act, operates to provide a license to the government for federally funded research based on work that occurred prior to the effective date of a funding agreement. University of South Fl. Board of Trustees v. United States, Case No. 22-2248 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024) (Reyna, Taranto, Stoll, JJ.)

University of South Florida (USF) owns a now-expired patent directed to transgenic mice expressing a certain gene causing an accelerated pathology for Alzheimer’s disease. The patent’s subject matter was conceived while the two named inventors worked at USF, but both inventors transitioned their work to the Mayo Clinic prior to the first actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. The mice remained at USF, under the care of USF professors, while the named inventors continued to oversee the project from Mayo. The first actual reduction to practice occurred while the inventors were at Mayo.

While the named inventors were still at USF, one inventor submitted a grant application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH awarded the inventors (while they were still at USF) a grant covering the mouse project. After the inventors moved to Mayo but prior to the award grant, the designated grantee changed from USF to Mayo. In November 1997, Mayo and USF entered into a subcontract whereby Mayo would pay USF for grant-covered work occurring at USF.

USF sued the United States alleging infringement of the mouse patent by a third party with the government’s authorization and consent. The third party was producing and using mice covered by the patent for the government. The US asserted a license defense under the Bayh-Dole Act, which gives the government a license to practice certain federally funded inventions. The Claims Court granted judgment to the US under its license defense, determining that USF operated pursuant to an implied contract with Mayo based on the understanding that Mayo would use funding from the NIH grant to pay USF for work done there. The Claims Court therefore determined that USF was a contactor with an implied subcontract that was a funding agreement under Bayh-Dole. Since the invention was therefore invented by a government contractor operating under a funding agreement, it was a “subject invention” that was first actually reduced to practice under a government contract. Therefore, under Bayh-Dole, the government was entitled to a license. USF appealed, arguing that the invention was not a “subject invention” within the meaning of § 202(c)(4) of Bayh-Dole.

USF argued that to trigger § 202(c)(4), a funding agreement must be in place at the time of the relevant work and there was no implied agreement in April 1997, the time the work that led to the reduction to practice commenced. The Federal Circuit determined that the November 1997 subcontract was adequate to support entitlement to claim a government license under § [...]

Continue Reading