District Court: Factual Disputes Preclude Application of Safe Harbor to Gene Editing Technology at the Pleading Stage

January 17, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

The patents in this case claimed gene editing tools known as bi-directional insertion templates (BDITs) and methods of their use. The patentee accused the defendant of using its patented BDITs for the research, identification and optimization of therapeutic candidates. As an example, the complaint alleged that defendant uses the BDITs as a platform technology to collaborate with other entities to develop therapeutic candidates. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that its accused research activities were reasonably related to obtaining FDA approval, and thus immunized by the Safe Harbor provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. The defendant argued that it developed its BDIT platform before the asserted patents issued, and its current activity was limited to late-stage development of therapies for FDA approval where the BDITs were incorporated into the therapeutic candidate.

In denying the motion, the court found it could not resolve on a motion to dismiss whether the accused uses of the BDITs were solely for uses reasonably related to obtaining FDA approval. The court noted that the Supreme Court construed “patented inventions” as used in the Hatch-Waxman Act to mean instrumentalities that are subject to premarket approval. Here, the patentee alleged that defendant’s BDITs were used as a tool to generate and identify therapeutic candidates, but the BDITs would not themselves be subject to FDA approval. Thus, at least at the pleading stage, patentee’s allegations were sufficient to preclude application of the Safe Harbor. The court further determined that patent owner’s allegations regarding defendant’s collaborations with other entities to develop therapeutics and defendant’s experimentation to identify potential candidates, when taken as true, reflected commercial activity not reasonably related to obtaining FDA approval. And for this additional reason, the allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Despite this result, the court acknowledged that BDITs present a “tricky fact pattern” because they are tools that have the potential to be incorporated into the final therapeutic candidate. But here again, the court found that it could not distinguish between early stage development and uses that actually do become part of the therapeutic. 

Practice Tip: While the Safe Harbor Provision affords some protection from claims of patent infringement, those protections are not absolute. As this case demonstrates, it is important to distinguish between technology that will be the subject of FDA review and technology that is used as a tool in development. While the former is likely protected under the Safe Harbor, the latter may fall outside its protections.

BlueAllele Corp. v. Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., 1-24-cv-00791, D.I. 35 (D. Del. Dec. 9, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.