Introduction and Background
The Apotex filgrastim/pegfilgrastim biosimilar litigation was the first biosimilar litigation where the parties participated in the patent dance. As a result, important issues regarding the interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (the “BPCIA”) were raised, including whether a biosimilar applicant (“(k) applicant”) must give 180-days’ notice to the reference
The battle over the proper forum for patent infringement litigation regarding Dupixent® (Dupilumab) appears to have been resolved. Last week, on May 1, 2017, Sanofi, Genzyme, and Regeneron voluntarily dismissed their Declaratory Judgment Complaint in the District of Massachusetts (Civ. No. 17-cv-10465). The dismissal, however, does not resolve the underlying patent infringement dispute, which is
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in its first biosimilar case. On a petition filed in Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., et al. No. Case No. 2015-1039, and a cross-petition filed in Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 2015-1195, the Court was asked to interpret two provisions of
Genentech filed suit against Amgen this past February when a dispute arose between the parties during the first step of the “patent dance” for Amgen’s bevacizumab product (ABP 215), a proposed biosimilar to Genentech’s Avastin®. Genentech accused Amgen of violating sections (l)(2)(A) and (l)(1)(c) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), 42 U.S.C.
Editors’ Note: Although the BPCIA was enacted seven years ago, to date, only four biosimilar products have been approved by the FDA, and only two of those products are commercially available to patients in the United States – Sandoz’s Zarxio® (a filgrastim biosimilar to Amgen’s Neupogen®) and Celltrion and Hospira’s Inflectra® (an infliximab biosimilar to
As we previously reported in this post, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in its first biosimilar case on Sandoz’s petition in Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-1039 and on Amgen’s cross-petition in Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., Case No. 2015-1195. On January 25, 2017, the Supreme
As we previously reported, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Genzyme Corporation, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a Declaratory Judgment Complaint against Amgen, Inc. and Immunex Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 20, 2017, preemptively seeking a determination that Sanofi and Regeneron’s Dupixent® (dupilumab) product does not infringe U.S.
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Genzyme Corporation, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaratory judgment from the Court that the development, manufacturing, sale, and promotion of Dupixent® (dupilumab) does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 (“the ’487 patent”). The ‘487 patent,
Samsung Bioepsis UK Limited (“Samsung”), Biogen Idec Limited (“Biogen”), and Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologic Company Limited (“Fujifilm Biologics”) have prevailed against two of AbbVie’s patents for Humira® in the UK.
On March 3, 2017, Justice Henry Carr of the UK High Court of Justice issued a decision declaring that administration of 40mg of adalimumab once
Genentech’s lawsuit against Amgen has come to a quick (although perhaps temporary) end, with the Court dismissing Genentech’s complaint without prejudice on March 1, 2017 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As discussed in our earlier post (which raised the