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

As we previously reported, Pfizer filed three IPR petitions against Biogen-owned patents claiming methods of treatment with rituximab in April 2017. The three proceedings are: IPR2017-01166, regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172 (“the ’172 patent”); IPR2017-01167, regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,557,244 (“the ’244 patent”); and IPR2017-01168, regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,821,873 (“the ’873 patent”). Institution

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 November 6, 2017, Sandoz, Inc. filed its eighth inter partes review (“IPR”) against AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (“AbbVie”), challenging yet another patent from the Humira® patent portfolio. Humira®, used for the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease, continues to be the number one selling drug in the world.[i] With

As we previously reported, Celltrion filed three petitions seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of two patents related to Genentech and Biogen’s Rituxan® (rituximab).  Celltrion filed two petitions seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,612 (“the ʼ612 patent”) and one petition seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 8,206,711 (“the ʼ711 patent”).  The PTAB has now reached

Samsung Bioepis (“Bioepis”) has joined a growing list of challengers to Genentech’s U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 (“the ʼ213 patent”) issued to Carter, et al. by filing two new petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”).  The ʼ213 patent, entitled “Method for Making Humanized Antibodies,” is generally directed to antibodies with humanized variable domains comprising non-human complementarity

Last week, Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) filed two petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two patents related to Genentech and Biogen’s Rituxan® (rituximab).  One petition challenges all but two claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,612 (“the ʼ612 patent”), and has been assigned IPR2017-02126.  The other petition seeks review of all nine claims of U.S. Patent

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