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

Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) announced last week that the FDA has granted tentative approval for its insulin glargine injection LusdunaTM NexvueTM,  a follow-on biologic to Sanofi’s Lantus®.  Because Merck’s application for insulin glargine was filed using the abbreviated 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway provided by the Hatch-Waxman Amendments (not a section (k) application

Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Boehringer Ingelheim”) have prevailed in two inter parts review trials against one of AbbVie’s patents related to Humira®.  In two final written decisions issued, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB” or “Board”) found all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,889,135 (the ’135 patent”) invalid.

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