Patents related to Regeneron’s EYLEA (aflibercept) were recently added to the Purple Book. Under the Biological Product Patent Transparency Act, signed into law December 27, 2020 and codified at 42 U.S.C. § 262(k)(9), patents must be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Purple Book during the “Patent Dance” under the BPCIA. Specifically,
The COVID-19 relief and spending bill signed into law on December 27, 2020, includes a provision – Division BB, Title III, Subtitle C, Section 325[1] – that adds a new paragraph 9 to 42 U.S.C. §262(k) requiring the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) to provide more information to the public about patented biological
On April 25, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approved new biosimilar product EticovoTM (etanercept-ykro) by Samsung Bioepis. Eticovo is a biosimilar to Enbrel® (etanercept), which is marketed by Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”). Like Enbrel, Eticovo was approved across five eligible indications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic
We previously wrote about Genentech’s U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 (“the ’213 patent”) to Carter, first in October 2017, and more recently in March 2018. At the time of our last update, the ’213 patent had been at issue in six district court litigations, and had been the subject of ten filed IPR petitions,
As we previously reported here and here, Celltrion filed suit against Genentech seeking declaratory judgment that a host of patents covering Rituxan® and Herceptin® were non-infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. Genentech responded by moving to dismiss, arguing that Celltrion’s claims were statutorily barred by the BPCIA. As we reported here, the Court agreed with Genentech and
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
As we previously reported here and here, Celltrion filed suit against Genentech seeking declaratory judgment that a number of patents relating to Herceptin® (trastuzumab) and Rituxan® (rituximab) are non-infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. In response, Genentech filed a motion to dismiss in both cases arguing that the case was statutorily barred under the BPCIA. On May
On January 11, 2018, Celltrion, Inc., Celltrion Healthcare, Co. Ltd. (collectively “Celltrion”), Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (collectively “Teva”) filed suit against Genentech, Inc., Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., and City of Hope seeking declaratory judgment that thirty-eight patents relating to Herceptin® (trastuzumab) are non-infringed, invalid, and/or unforceable. According to Celltrion and Teva, a
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 August 8, 2017, Sanofi-Aventis (“Sanofi”) filed a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Merck Sharp & Dohme (“Merck”) for infringement of U.S Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930. The suit relates to Merck’s insulin glargine vial drug product, a proposed follow-on biologic of Sanofi’s Lantus.