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
On November 6, 2017, Sandoz, Inc. filed its eighth inter partes review (“IPR”) against AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (“AbbVie”), challenging yet another patent from the Humira® patent portfolio. Humira®, used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease, continues to be the number one selling drug in the world.[i] With
As previously reported, earlier this year Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”) filed petitions seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of certain Genentech patents covering Herceptin® (trastuzumab). In particular, Celltrion challenged the patentability of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,846,441 (“the ʼ441 patent”); 7,892,549 (“the ʼ549 patent”); 6,626,196 (“the ʼ196 patent”); 7,371,379 (“the ʼ379 patent”). Earlier this month,
As we previously reported, Celltrion filed three petitions seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of two patents related to Genentech and Biogen’s Rituxan® (rituximab). Celltrion filed two petitions seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,612 (“the ʼ612 patent”) and one petition seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 8,206,711 (“the ʼ711 patent”). The PTAB has now reached
On August 8, 2017, Sanofi-Aventis (“Sanofi”) filed a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Merck Sharp & Dohme (“Merck”) for infringement of U.S Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930. The suit relates to Merck’s insulin glargine vial drug product, a proposed follow-on biologic of Sanofi’s Lantus.
Recently, AbbVie, Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology, LTD (collectively “AbbVie” or “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Boehringer Ingelheim Fremont, Inc. (collectively “Boehringer Ingelheim” or “Defendant”) related to Boehringer Ingelheim’s adalimumab product, a proposed biosimilar to AbbVie’s
Since our prior article on the litigation between Amgen and Hospira over Hospira’s proposed biosimilar to Amgen’s Epogen®, there have been several developments, including those that occurred after the Supreme Court’s recent Amgen v. Sandoz decision.
The last major development we previously discussed was a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Amgen seeking “to
As we previously reported here, earlier this year the Supreme Court agreed to hear its first case arising under the Biosimilars Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) in the cases of Sandoz v. Amgen and Amgen v. Sandoz. Our earlier post provides the factual background on this case, which involves Sandoz’s application to
The patent venue statue, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), states that “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Recently, in TC Heartland LLC
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