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
For decades, courts have construed the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” to mean that the scope of a claim is limited to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA
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
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
Prior to 1994, the term of a U.S. patent was 17 years from the date of issuance. When the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) changed the term to 20 years from the earliest nonprovisional priority date, it appeared that unpatentability due to obviousness type double patenting (“ODP”) would no longer be relevant since the patent
As we recently covered, May 15, 2018, saw the FDA granting approval to Hospira (now a Pfizer subsidiary) for its Retacrit injection, a biosimilar to Amgen’s Epogen®. The approval, based on a Biologics License Application dated December 16, 2014, came after Hospira resubmitted its application twice after receiving Complete Response Letters from the FDA,
Lately, it has been very difficult to get diagnostic claims allowed without limiting the method steps to very specific components (e.g. reagents, devices, assays, samples, etc.). However, a recent Federal Circuit case suggests that there may be hope for broader diagnostic claims in the future. In Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-2315,
Biologic drugs are large molecules, such as therapeutic proteins, DNA vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and fusion proteins, that are typically derived from living cells and used in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of disease. Most biologics are produced by genetically engineering living cells to express the therapeutic proteins rather than through traditional chemical synthesis. As proteins
Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of AbbVie’s complaint seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,248,516 (“the ’516 patent”) owned by Astra Zeneca subsidiary MedImmune. AbbVie brought this declaratory judgment action in June 2016 in the hopes of ending its royalty obligations to MedImmune.
The Fed. Circuit’s decision