In the most recent of a series of litigations by AbbVie against manufacturers seeking to market biosimilar versions of Humira®, the world’s most profitable drug, AbbVie initiated an action against Alvotech in the district court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 27, 2021, after Alvotech requested approval of its biosimilar, AVT02, a biosimilar

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

The world-wide market share of biologic drugs is advancing at a staggering pace, with some estimates ranging from $ 300 billion to $452 billion in revenue within the next five years.[1],[2],[3]  The treatment costs for patients administered biologic drugs are very high relative to historic drug prices.  The one year

Many factors contribute to the price that consumers pay for prescription drugs and biologics.  These factors include research and development costs, manufacturing costs, terms negotiated by insurance plans, supply and demand, and intellectual property rights.  Intellectual property rights are often viewed as one of the most significant factors driving high drug and biologic prices. In

On August 10, 2018, AbbVie, Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (collectively “AbbVie”) sued Sandoz Inc., Sandoz GMBH, and Sandoz International GMBH (collectively “Sandoz”) in the district of New Jersey alleging infringement of two patents related to Humira®:  U.S. Patent 9,187,559 (“the ʼ559 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,750,808 (“the ʼ808 patent”).

According to the complaint

Earlier this month, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”) denied institution of Sandoz’s petition for inter partes review of Abbvie’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,512,216 (“the ’216 patent”), directed to methods for treating moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis with a human anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) antibody.[1] The petition,

Sandoz’s request for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Numbers 9,512,216 (“the ’216 patent”) and 8,802,100 (“the ’100 patent”) was denied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on the grounds that Sandoz did not show that the patents were likely unpatentable.  The decisions not to institute an IPR of either patent