On this page
What should an NDA exclusivity claim contain?
Identify the specific exclusivity provision and submit the claim with the required supporting information before NDA approval. Explain how the evidence meets that category’s tests, including active-moiety history or qualifying clinical investigations as applicable. Trace conclusions to dossier records and required certifications; an assertion of novelty or investment does not establish entitlement.
Before you begin
NDA exclusivity claims under 21 CFR 314.50(j) and 314.108. Orphan, pediatric, ANDA first-applicant and biologic exclusivities require their own legal basis.
What you will prepare: A concise claim supported by an eligibility analysis and traceable application evidence.
Name the claimed provision and its factual test
Section 314.50(j) calls for an applicant claiming exclusivity to submit the claim before NDA approval, identify the supporting §314.108 provision and supply the applicable evidence. Start with a written legal/regulatory assessment of the claimed category. A novel formulation, a new patent and a new active moiety are not interchangeable facts.
For the new-chemical-entity route described in §314.108(b)(2), the supporting inquiry concerns prior approval of an active moiety. For the clinical-investigation routes in §314.108(b)(4) or (5), address whether the investigations are new, essential to approval and conducted or sponsored by the applicant. Do not use a general statement that the program was expensive as proof.
Write the claim around an evidence table
Use columns for eligibility element, exact evidence, dossier location, responsible reviewer and unresolved issue. For active-moiety history, document the search scope and scientific identity assessment. For qualifying investigations, identify each study, its role in approval, why existing evidence is insufficient for that role, and the records supporting applicant conduct or sponsorship.
Then write a concise claim: application and product; specific provision; evidence-based explanation for each element; cross-references; and the requested determination. Keep alternate or uncertain analyses visible for the responsible reviewers. The applicant claims; FDA determines the applicable exclusivity.
Worked check: new formulation without qualifying investigations
Fictional exercise: a supplement proposes a new formulation and relies only on bioavailability work. The team cannot conclude that it earns the clinical-investigation exclusivity merely from the formulation change. Apply §314.108’s definitions and exclusions with counsel and identify the evidence actually supporting the claim.
Change the pathway to a BLA: this NDA claim template no longer establishes the governing exclusivity framework. Remove the assumed category and obtain a BLA-specific analysis. Missing sponsorship records likewise leave that element unresolved; do not fabricate a declaration.
Write the claim one eligibility element at a time
Use separate evidence paths for new-chemical-entity and clinical-investigation claims. This working sheet helps organize the analysis; it does not decide which exclusivity FDA will recognize.
| Claimed basis or element | Evidence package | Weak substitute to reject |
|---|---|---|
| New chemical entity | Active-moiety identity and relevant prior-approval inquiry | New brand, formulation or patent alone |
| New clinical investigation | Identified reports and analysis under §314.108’s definition | A recent study date alone |
| Essential to approval | Relevant literature/public-report list, required certification and explanation of insufficiency without the new investigation | Calling the study “pivotal” without the analysis |
| Conducted or sponsored | Applicable IND identity or substantial-support evidence under §314.50(j) | Merely possessing a copy or a nonexclusive right to a completed study |
| Claim scope | Exact product, supplement or conditions of approval and supporting provision | A generic assertion of protection for the whole portfolio |
For a clinical-investigation claim, the essentiality explanation should address the known relevant public evidence. Record the literature search sufficiently for the reviewer to understand what was searched, which reports were considered and why they cannot support the proposed conditions without the new investigation. The rule calls for a certification and explanation; a bibliography without that reasoning is incomplete.
Sponsorship needs its own record. If the applicant was the IND sponsor for the relevant investigation, identify the IND. Otherwise assess the substantial-support route and supporting certification. The regulation describes a certified public accountant’s statement for support of 50 percent or more of study cost, or an explanation for FDA’s consideration in the other specified circumstances. Avoid rewriting that as a universal rule that any contribution below 50 percent automatically fails.
Rights exercise: a company buys nonexclusive rights to a completed investigation and calls itself the study sponsor in its claim. Trace the actual history and apply the definition before writing that conclusion. A right to use evidence and having conducted or sponsored the study are different questions. Resolve the gap rather than replacing it with a broad declaration about ownership.
Use the reference-permission guide for reliance rights and the patent-task overview to keep patent submissions separate. Close each eligibility row with evidence, a reasoned conclusion and the responsible reviewer’s disposition.
Your preparation checklist
0/3 checkedUse this to track your review in this visit. Checks are not saved and do not establish regulatory compliance.
Frequently asked questions
Does a new formulation automatically qualify for three-year exclusivity?
No. The clinical-investigation routes require the relevant new investigations, other than bioavailability studies, to be essential to approval and conducted or sponsored by the applicant. Assess the actual application and evidence against those definitions. The formulation change alone does not answer the eligibility questions.
Can bioavailability studies alone support the clinical-investigation exclusivity route?
No. The definition of clinical investigation used for this purpose excludes a bioavailability study, and the relevant exclusivity provisions expressly distinguish those studies. Identify the evidence actually relied on and the correct category rather than relabeling bioavailability work as qualifying clinical investigations.
Does buying nonexclusive rights to a completed study establish sponsorship for exclusivity?
No. Section 314.108’s definition does not treat that purchase as sufficient to establish a predecessor in interest. Assess the actual conduct, IND sponsorship or substantial-support history under the applicable provisions. Permission to use the report is a separate question from satisfying the exclusivity test.
Is calling an investigation pivotal enough to show it was essential to approval?
No. Section 314.50(j) calls for the relevant public-evidence list, certification and an explanation of why those studies or reports cannot support approval of the proposed conditions without the new investigation. The clinical label “pivotal” does not replace that evidentiary explanation.
Sources and revisions
Requirements, source recommendations and editorial preparation advice have different roles. Review the scope and revision of the source you use.
Regulation
21 CFR Part 314: drug marketing applications ↗Current part reopened September 22, 2026; §§314.50, 314.53, 314.65, 314.72, 314.94, 314.99, 314.108 and 314.150–162 inspected. Not a general BLA rule.
Technical specification · placement only
FDA eCTD v4.0 comprehensive hierarchy ↗Version 2.2, February 2025. Section 1.3.5.3. A heading identifies placement, not mandatory applicability.