On November 17, 2023, Genentech, Hoffman-La Roche, and Biogen (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Fresenius Kabi (collectively “defendants”) (DNJ No. 23-cv-22485). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants infringe or intend to infringe fifteen patents related to the biologic rituximab
On January 28, 2021, Bio-Thera Solutions, Ltd., a biopharmaceutical company based in China, announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepted its Biologics License Application (BLA) for BAT1706, a proposed biosimilar to bevacizumab, referencing Genentech’s Avastin®, but excluding indications under orphan drug exclusivity protection. The FDA has set November 27, 2021,
On November 18, 2020, companies Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. and Biogen Inc. announced that the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) accepted for review the Biologics License Application for SB11, a proposed biosimilar referencing Genentech, Inc. product Lucentis® (ranibizumab). Ranibizumab is an anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) therapy for retinal vascular disorders, which are
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
On April 2, 2019, Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) filed a Petition for Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) of Genentech’s U.S. Patent 10,011,654 (“the ’654 patent”). The ’654 patent, entitled “Antibodies Directed to IL-17A/IL-17F Heterodimers,” has just seven claims, with independent claim 1 drawn to “[a]n isolated humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to an IL-17A-17F heterodimer comprising
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,
Recently, Pfizer was denied institution of two follow-on inter partes review (IPR) petitions, IPR Nos. 2018-00330 and 2018-00331 (“the 2018 petitions”), filed on December 18, 2017, asserting invalidity of Genentech patents, U.S. 6,339,142 (“the ’142 patent”) and U.S. 9,249,218 (“the ’218 patent”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) denied instituting the IPRs using
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
On July 2, 2018, Genentech filed suit against Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) in the Southern District of California alleging Lilly’s Taltz® infringes newly issued U.S. Patent 10,011,654 (“the ʼ654 patent”). According to the complaint, the ʼ654 patent issued at 12:00 am Eastern time on July 3, 2018, and the complaint was filed immediately thereafter.
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