Section 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor Applies to Importation Regardless of Intent or Actual Use

April 18, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

A divided panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, holding that importation of two product samples into the U.S. was reasonably related to obtaining FDA approval based on the particular facts of this case. In dissent, Judge Lourie disagreed, suggesting that summary judgment was not appropriate where factual disputes existed as to whether the importation was “solely” for purposes related to FDA approval.

At issue in this case was the importation of two sample heart valve systems. The accused infringer brought the samples into the U.S. in connection with a medical trade show. It was undisputed, however, that the samples were never shown at the trade show. It was also undisputed that the accused infringer never offered for sale or sold the samples. And in advance of the trade show, the accused infringer instructed its employees that they could not make offers for sale in the U.S. But the employees were permitted to make offers for other countries where the systems were already approved for human use. According to the accused infringer, it brought the samples to the U.S. trade show to identify potential clinicians for its premarket approval application who were known to attend the trade show. In support of this assertion, the accused infringer presented evidence that it started work on a premarket approval submission, began planning a “Landmark Trial” to include in future submissions to the FDA, contacted the FDA about the requirements for a premarket submission and retained a medical device consulting company to assist with its premarket submission.

Based on these facts, the district court found the accused infringer’s activities were protected by the Safe Harbor provision, and granted summary judgment of non-infringement. 

On appeal, the patentee argued the district court failed to apply an objective standard to the Safe Harbor and instead improperly relied on the accused infringer’s intent. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, explaining that “the relevant inquiry is not why” the accused infringer imported the samples “or how” it used the samples, “but whether the act of importation was for a use reasonably related to submitting information to the FDA.” In view of the undisputed evidence that no offers for sale were made, the court held that no reasonably minded juror could have concluded the importation was “solely to support commercial sales, rather than to recruit clinical investigators.” According to the majority, “solely” as used in the Safe Harbor modifies uses and means, for each act of infringement, the safe harbor is available where the acts or uses that constitute infringement bear a reasonable relation to the development and submission of information to the FDA.

On this point, Judge Lourie dissented. In Judge Lourie’s view, the majority opinion and the Federal Circuit precedence on which it relies read the word “solely” out of the Safe Harbor. Judge Lourie believes that solely limits the application of the Safe Harbor to acts that have no purpose other than the development of information for the FDA. In other words, the Safe Harbor does not exist to protect acts that have a dual purpose, one of which is commercial. And here, factual disputes existed at least as to whether the accused infringer’s importation served a dual purpose—FDA approval and sales. Judge Lourie urged that consideration by the Federal Circuit en banc is warranted to consider the proper construction of the Safe Harbor provision.

Practice Tip: Parties who are actively developing products for which FDA approvals are required prior to commercial use should take care to ensure that any potential act of infringement preceding FDA approval is tied to the development of information that will be submitted to the FDA. Such activity is protected if it is reasonably related to an FDA submission; whereas activity that is solely commercial in nature is exempt from the Safe Harbor.  

Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Scis. Pvt. Ltd., No. 2022-1877, 2024 WL 1243032 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.