On May 11, 2016, a new federal trade secrets law called the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) took effect. Its primary impact is to allow the victims of trade secret misappropriation to sue in federal court. It also provides some new civil remedies that exceed what is usually available under state law. The DTSA will be slotted into the U.S. Criminal Code (chapter 90 of Title 18), which already makes industrial espionage and trade secret theft a federal crime. In terms of what companies have to do to comply, the answer is almost nothing—the sole exception being a change in future employee contracts that is discussed below. In this post I’ll describe and analyze the new law and offer some thoughts about its potential impact on the life sciences industry.
Until now, civil trade secret protection has been entirely a matter of state law. The law is very consistent from state to state, as 47 states have enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). The exceptions are New York, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, though the North Carolina statute is generally similar to UTSA. Enforcement actions must usually be brought in state court, though federal courts can take jurisdiction if the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. Even then, however, the federal court must apply state law in deciding the case.
Read the rest of this entry »
On July 8, 2016, the FDA issued draft guidance on the subject of next generation sequencing (NGS) activities: (1) “Uses of Standards in FDA Regulatory Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Used for Diagnosing Germline Diseases” and (2) “Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based In Vitro Diagnostics.” The first focuses on the FDA’s proposed use of standards to help establish the safety and efficacy of NGS-based tests. The second focuses on the importance of high quality and publicly accessible databases to provide robust scientific evidence for understanding genomic variation, to inform decision-making, and to assess the clinical validity of NGS-based tests. Guidance is not a formal regulation, but rather an agency’s statement about how it will interpret or apply a regulation in the future. Draft guidance is a proposed policy that means the agency is formulating a position, whereas a final guidance is a document that represents what the agency has settled on as its interpretive policy. In theory, guidance is intended to serve as additional instructions for complying with rules and not intended to serve as the rules themselves.
The premise underlying the draft guidance is the controversial and—as yet—legally untested assertion that genomic analyses of all kinds are “medical devices” that Congress has, by statute, authorized the FDA to regulate. If they are, then the FDA would have the power to bring them under its current risk-based classification scheme for medical devices or to create a new scheme for them. If they are not medical devices, then the effort to regulate them might exceed the FDA’s statutory authority and conceivably amount to an unconstitutional regulatory overreach. Both draft guidance documents avoid any mention of the overarching debate, a subject covered extensively on Genomics Law Report, surrounding FDA oversight of all laboratory developed tests (LDTs) and in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assays (IVDMIAs). As others have noted, it is impossible to consider these new pieces of draft guidance outside of that context. Nonetheless, even the FDA asserts (via Twitter and elsewhere) that the two new drafts are intended to facilitate the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) and are distinct from the agency’s expressed intention to regulate LDTs. These pieces of draft guidance also give a policy-based reason for pause, as they could be another example of governance by guidance, a highly problematic approach as highlighted recently by John Conley with regard to the HIPAA right to access lab data and results.
Read the rest of this entry »