This is our second update on the litigation (you can see the prior analyses here and here, in addition to a parallel post on our companion blog concerning patent office practice) involving Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“Janssen”), Celltrion Healthcare Co. and Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”), and Hospira Inc. (“Hospira”); but, judging by the course of things,
Several of the Federal Circuit’s initial decisions involving the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (the “BPCIA”) focused on unpacking the contours of the statute. The Federal Circuit’s recently issued opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 2017-1010, Slip Op. Nov. 13, 2017, by contrast, involves standard principles of appellate review.
We previously
This article provides an update on our prior analysis of the infliximab litigation involving Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“Janssen”), Celltrion Healthcare Co. and Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”), and Hospira Inc. (“Hospira”).
Briefly, when we last addressed this case, the litigation had already been narrowed to one patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083 (“the ’083 patent”). Further, there were
Genentech filed suit against Amgen this past February when a dispute arose between the parties during the first step of the “patent dance” for Amgen’s bevacizumab product (ABP 215), a proposed biosimilar to Genentech’s Avastin®. Genentech accused Amgen of violating sections (l)(2)(A) and (l)(1)(c) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), 42 U.S.C.
Editors’ Note: Although the BPCIA was enacted seven years ago, to date, only four biosimilar products have been approved by the FDA, and only two of those products are commercially available to patients in the United States – Sandoz’s Zarxio® (a filgrastim biosimilar to Amgen’s Neupogen®) and Celltrion and Hospira’s Inflectra® (an infliximab biosimilar to
Genentech’s lawsuit against Amgen has come to a quick (although perhaps temporary) end, with the Court dismissing Genentech’s complaint without prejudice on March 1, 2017 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As discussed in our earlier post (which raised the