On February 14, 2019, the PTAB issued final written decisions in two separate IPRs filed by Sanofi-Aventis, Genzyme Corp., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (collectively “Sanofi”) against U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 (“the ʼ487 patent”) assigned to Immunex Corporation (“Immunex”). Claim 1 of the ʼ487 patent is the only independent claim, and it is directed to “an isolated
On February 21, 2019, Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) filed suit against Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing Limited (collectively “Amgen”) seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 9,643,997 (“the ʼ997 patent”). The ʼ997 patent is directed to methods of purifying a protein expressed in a non-native limited solubility form in a non-mammalian
The PTAB recently denied institution of two IPRs filed by CSL Behring LLC, CSL Behring GMBH, and CSL Behring Recombinant Facility AG (collectively “CSL”) targeting U.S. Patent No. 9,623,091 (“the ʼ091 patent”) owned by Bioverativ Therapetutics, Inc. (“Bioverativ”). More specifically, on January 6, 2019, the PTAB denied institution of IPR2018-01313 (“the ʼ313 IPR”), and on
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) requires applications to market a biological product be submitted for review by the FDA under § 351 of the Public Health Service Act (“PHS Act”). However, it carved out a limited exception for biological products that are in a product class that had already been approved under
The FDA recently proposed an amendment to its regulations defining the term “biological product.” The proposed amendment incorporates changes made by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) into the FDA’s regulations, and provides the FDA’s interpretation of the statutory terms “protein” and “chemically synthesized polypeptide.” The proposed definitions of the statutory terms are
On August 10, 2018, AbbVie, Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (collectively “AbbVie”) sued Sandoz Inc., Sandoz GMBH, and Sandoz International GMBH (collectively “Sandoz”) in the district of New Jersey alleging infringement of two patents related to Humira®: U.S. Patent 9,187,559 (“the ʼ559 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,750,808 (“the ʼ808 patent”).
According to the complaint
On July 2, 2018, Genentech filed suit against Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) in the Southern District of California alleging Lilly’s Taltz® infringes newly issued U.S. Patent 10,011,654 (“the ʼ654 patent”). According to the complaint, the ʼ654 patent issued at 12:00 am Eastern time on July 3, 2018, and the complaint was filed immediately thereafter.
As we previously reported here and here, Celltrion filed suit against Genentech seeking declaratory judgment that a host of patents covering Rituxan® and Herceptin® were non-infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. Genentech responded by moving to dismiss, arguing that Celltrion’s claims were statutorily barred by the BPCIA. As we reported here, the Court agreed with Genentech and
Last week, Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) announced that galcanezumab met its primary endpoint in a Phase 3 study of patients with episodic cluster headaches. Lilly previously announced that galcanezumab met its primary endpoints in three different Phase 3 studies evaluating its effectiveness in preventing episodic and chronic migraine.
The episodic cluster headache study was
Last week, Novartis and Amgen announced the FDA approved Aimovig™ (erenumab) for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The FDA granted approval to Amgen; however, Amgen and Novartis have entered into a global collaboration to develop and commercialize treatments in the field of migraine. As part of this agreement, the two companies will co-commercialize