Mark your calendars – on December 9th, the Federal Circuit is slated to hear oral arguments as to whether two Amgen patents claiming a genus of antibodies meet the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The court’s decision may have a considerable impact on antibody-based drug development and the scope of patent
We have previously covered various aspects of a legal battle between Genentech and Amgen regarding Amgen’s efforts to market Mvasi, a biosimilar to Genentech’s bevacizumab product, Avastin. These aspects include Genentech’s quickly-dismissed February 2017 action contending Amgen was in violation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) (covered here and here), and
As previously reported, the FDA had yet to approve any biosimilars in 2020 as of June 9, despite a growing pipeline. Since then, the FDA has approved two biosimilar products.
On June 11, Pfizer Inc. announced the FDA’s approval of Nyvepria™ (pegfilgrastim-apgf), a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta™. Nyvepria is indicated “to decrease the incidence of
On January 15, 2020, Hospira filed a petition for rehearing en banc asking the full Federal Circuit to reconsider a prior panel’s analysis of the Safe Harbor provision and reverse the finding of infringement. In December 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s decision denying Hospira’s motion for judgment as a matter of
As we previously reported, earlier this year the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that Sandoz’s ZARXIO filgrastim biosimilar and proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar do not infringe Amgen’s patents. The patents-at-issue were Amgen’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,940,878 (“the ’878 patent”) and 6,162,427 (“the ’427 patent”). The ’872 patent is directed towards methods of purifying
In a recent precedential opinion[1], the Federal Circuit rejected arguments by Amgen that a single step purification process used by Sandoz for its G-CSF biosimilar infringed claims of Amgen’s patent describing a multistep purification procedure for proteins expressed in a non-mammalian system.
In this case, the Federal Circuit explained that the doctrine of
On May 20, 2019, the PTAB denied a request for rehearing in Apotex Inc. v. Amgen Inc., Case IPR2016-01542 (Paper 67), but modified its Final Written Decision. In the Final Written Decision, the PTAB found claims 1-17 and 19-24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,952,138 (“the ’138 patent”) unpatentable. The ’138 patent is directed towards
On April 25, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved new biosimilar product EticovoTM (etanercept-ykro) by Samsung Bioepis. Eticovo is a biosimilar to Enbrel® (etanercept), which is marketed by Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”). Like Enbrel, Eticovo was approved across five eligible indications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic
Recently, in Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., Case PGR2019-00001 (Paper No. 13) (PTAB Apr. 19, 2019), the PTAB instituted post-grant review of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,856,287 (“the ’287 patent”). The ’287 patent is the patent at issue in a pending litigation between Amgen and Apotex under the Biologics Price Competition
Over four years ago, in October 2014, Amgen initiated a patent infringement suit against Sanofi and Regeneron regarding biologics for treatment of high cholesterol.[1] The case reached an important milestone recently as a jury entered a verdict largely upholding the validity of Amgen’s asserted patents, to the disappointment of Sanofi and Regeneron. A similar