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
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 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
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
Introduction
The Amgen, Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (“Amgen”) litigation against Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”), filed in September 2015, was one of the earliest cases filed under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). The case involves Hospira’s proposed biosimilar to Amgen’s Epogen®/Procrit® (epoetin alfa). The procedural posture is somewhat complicated, as
Earlier this month, Janssen Biotech, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, (“Janssen” or “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Bioepis” or “Defendant”), a joint venture between Samsung Biologics and Biogen. The patent infringement litigation relates to Samsung Bioepis’s
Baxalta Incorporated and Baxalta GmbH (collectively “Baxalta” or “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on May 4, 2017, against Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) and Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., (“Chugai,” and collectively with Genentech “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants’ bispecific monoclonal antibody emicizumab infringes claims 1, 4, 15, 17