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
As we previously reported here, earlier this year the Supreme Court agreed to hear its first case arising under the Biosimilars Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) in the cases of Sandoz v. Amgen and Amgen v. Sandoz. Our earlier post provides the factual background on this case, which involves Sandoz’s application to
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.
On June 30, 2017, Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) filed two new petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,591,897 (“the ’897 patent”) related to Genentech’s Herceptin® (trastuzumab). Pfizer has a trastuzumab biosimilar in phase III development, but it has not yet announced the filing of an application for that product with the
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
This article provides an update on our prior analysis of the infliximab litigation involving Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“Janssen”), Celltrion Healthcare Co. and Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”), and Hospira Inc. (“Hospira”).
Briefly, when we last addressed this case, the litigation had already been narrowed to one patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083 (“the ’083 patent”). Further, there were
Introduction
The Amgen, Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (“Amgen”) litigation against Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”), filed in September 2015, was one of the earliest cases filed under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). The case involves Hospira’s proposed biosimilar to Amgen’s Epogen®/Procrit® (epoetin alfa). The procedural posture is somewhat complicated, as
On May 25, 2017, Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) filed two new petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 (“the ’213 patent”). The ‘213 patent, entitled “Method for Making Humanized Antibodies,” issued on June 18, 2002. Although the IPR petitions do not identify a particular biologic, Genentech has publicly stated that the technology
Earlier this month, Janssen Biotech, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, (“Janssen” or “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Bioepis” or “Defendant”), a joint venture between Samsung Biologics and Biogen. The patent infringement litigation relates to Samsung Bioepis’s