On March 14, 2022, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Regeneron”) filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 CFR § 1.321 disclaiming all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,857,231 B2 (the “’231 patent”) in response to a petition for a post-grant review submitted by Celltrion Inc. (“Celltrion”). On September 7, 2021, Celltrion submitted a petition for post-grant review of
During the first quarter of 2021, multiple companies launched adalimumab biosimilars as a growing number of biosimilar players marketed their versions of the world’s most profitable drug, Humira®, which had sales of about $20 billion in 2020. While none have launched thus far, at least eight adalimumab biosimilars are due to launch by
We previously wrote about Genentech’s U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 (“the ’213 patent”) to Carter, first in October 2017, and more recently in March 2018. At the time of our last update, the ’213 patent had been at issue in six district court litigations, and had been the subject of ten filed IPR petitions,
In a 104-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf granted summary judgment in favor of Celltrion and Hospira, finding that a doctrine of equivalents claim made by Janssen Biotech (“Janssen”) with respect to a Remicide®-related patent would ensnare the prior art.
Janssen makes Remicade®, a biologic drug whose active ingredient is the monoclonal
The PTAB recently instituted a second IPR of US Patent 9,296,821 (“the ’821 patent”), which covers certain uses of Rituxan® (rituximab), a monoclonal antibody marketed by Genentech and Biogen Pharmaceuticals. The ‘821 patent claims methods of treating low grade or follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) by administering rituximab during a chemotherapeutic regimen of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and
U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172 (“the ’172 patent”), a Biogen-owned patent covering a treatment regime for low-grade B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, has been a relatively frequent subject of our posts. We first wrote about it in March of 2017, reporting on the filing of Celltrion’s IPR petition against the patent, then again that May, reporting
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
Earlier this month, Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”) filed a copycat IPR petition directed against U.S. Patent No. 7,976,838 (“the ʼ838 patent”) that is essentially identical to a petition filed by Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”). The PTAB recently instituted review of the ʼ838 patent based on Pfizer’s petition in IPR2017-01923. Celltrion’s copycat petition was accompanied by a motion
As we previously reported here and here, Celltrion filed suit against Genentech seeking declaratory judgment that a number of patents relating to Herceptin® (trastuzumab) and Rituxan® (rituximab) are non-infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. In response, Genentech filed a motion to dismiss in both cases arguing that the case was statutorily barred under the BPCIA. On May
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) has decided not to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) on two patents owned by Biogen and Genentech. Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) filed two petitions asserting that the patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,206,711 (“the ’711 patent”) and 7,682,612 (“the ’612 patent”), were invalid as obvious in view of prior