Biologic drugs are large molecules, such as therapeutic proteins, DNA vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and fusion proteins, that are typically derived from living cells and used in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of disease. Most biologics are produced by genetically engineering living cells to express the therapeutic proteins rather than through traditional chemical synthesis. As proteins
In October, we reported on a growing number of IPR challenges to Genentech’s U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 (“the ʼ213 patent”) to Carter. The ’213 patent, “Method for making humanized antibodies,” which Genentech has stated in SEC filings covers technology used in developing the breast cancer drug Herceptin® (trastuzumab), has since been asserted or is otherwise
Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of AbbVie’s complaint seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,248,516 (“the ’516 patent”) owned by Astra Zeneca subsidiary MedImmune. AbbVie brought this declaratory judgment action in June 2016 in the hopes of ending its royalty obligations to MedImmune.
The Fed. Circuit’s decision
On February 2, 2018, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu granted Genentech’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought by Amgen in the Central District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of twenty-seven patents related to Genentech’s cancer treatment biologic, Avastin® (bevacizumab).[i]
Judge Wu issued a tentative decision on January
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,
On December 20, 2017, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Bavarian Nordic, and Enzo Biochem, Inc. filed an amicus brief in support of Amgen’s petition for rehearing en banc. We reported previously that on November 6, 2017, Amgen filed a petition for rehearing en banc of a Federal Circuit panel’s decision vacating a permanent injunction against
On December 5, 2017, the Federal Circuit held oral argument in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, 17-1694. The case comes on appeal from an IPR decision where the Board declined to find U.S. Patent No. 8,476,239 (“the ʼ239 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. The ʼ239 patent covers Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (“BMS”) Orencia® product, a
On December 14, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Amgen v. Sandoz,[i] holding that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA,” the “Act”) preempts state law, and thus state laws cannot be used to enforce participation in the BPCIA’s patent dispute resolution procedures and disclosure process. In light of
The FDA has only approved eight biosimilar products to date. The second most recently approved biosimilar is Mvasi (bevacizumab-awwb), which is manufactured by Amgen and was approved as a biosimilar to Genentech’s Avastin (bevacizumab) on September 14, 2017.[1]
On October 6, 2017—about three weeks after the FDA approved Mvasi—Amgen provided Genentech with a notice
As we previously reported, Pfizer filed three IPR petitions against Biogen-owned patents claiming methods of treatment with rituximab in April 2017. The three proceedings are: IPR2017-01166, regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172 (“the ’172 patent”); IPR2017-01167, regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,557,244 (“the ’244 patent”); and IPR2017-01168, regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,821,873 (“the ’873 patent”). Institution