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
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 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
In October, a Federal Circuit panel vacated a permanent injunction against Sanofi and Regeneron’s Praluent® and remanded the proceeding to the district court for a new trial on the defendants’ written description and enablement defenses.[i] The panel had held that the district court erred by (i) excluding the defendants’ evidence of written description and
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
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
On September 28, 2017, AbbVie and Amgen announced a global settlement of their patent dispute surrounding Amgen’s proposed biosimilar to HUMIRA. The terms of the agreement remain confidential between the parties, but according to the announcement, AbbVie will grant Amgen a non-exclusive license for the use and sale of Amgen’s biosimilar (AMGEVITA) to HUMIRA. Amgen
Amgen and Allergan recently announced that they submitted a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for ABP 980, a proposed biosimilar to Genentech’s Herceptin® (trastuzumab), to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). According to the press release, Amgen and Allegan have “formed a collaboration to develop and commercialize, on a worldwide basis, four oncology antibody biosimilar medicines.”
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