Earlier this month, Amgen initiated suit against Apotex in the Middle District of Florida, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,856,287 (“the ’287 patent”). This is the third complaint that Amgen has brought against Apotex under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (the “BPCIA”), based on Apotex’s abbreviated biologic license applications (“aBLAs”) for biosimilars
On March 8, 2018, Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) filed suit against Adello Biologics, LLC (“Adello”) in the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of seventeen patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,180,391; 7,083,948; 7,118,884; 7,384,765; 7,427,659; 7,662,930; 7,735,525; 7,781,395; 8,191,566; 8,273,707; 8,940,878; 8,952,138; 9,418,416; 9,632,095; 9,643,997; 9,704,239; and 9,856,287. The case is assigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi
Biologic drugs are large molecules, such as therapeutic proteins, DNA vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and fusion proteins, that are typically derived from living cells and used in the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of disease. Most biologics are produced by genetically engineering living cells to express the therapeutic proteins rather than through traditional chemical synthesis. As proteins
On December 14, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Amgen v. Sandoz,[i] holding that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA,” the “Act”) preempts state law, and thus state laws cannot be used to enforce participation in the BPCIA’s patent dispute resolution procedures and disclosure process. In light of
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