Recently, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Pfizer Inc.’s (“Pfizer”) appeal for lack of Article III standing. Pfizer had filed an inter partes review (“IPR”) against Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. (“Chugai”) arguing that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,332,289 and 7,927,815 (“the patents-at-issue”) were unpatentable. The patents at issue are directed towards methods of manufacturing rituximab. Specifically,
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) held its monthly meeting on March 23-26, 2020. During the meeting, the CHMP reported important updates on the status of the approval process for biosimilars relating to etanercept and rituximab.
At the meeting, the CHMP adopted a positive opinion that recommended
A white paper released in 2019 by The Biosimilars Forum and Medicines for Europe shows the United States and Europe accounting for more than a combined 80% of sales of biologic medicines, and more than a combined 90% of biosimilars.[1] This, of course, has led to a focus on these markets for the biopharmaceutical
As we previously reported, one of three Pfizer IPR petitions filed in April 2017 against Biogen-owned patents claiming methods of treatment with rituximab was instituted. The instituted IPR is IPR2017-01168 regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,821,873 (the “’873 patent”), and the PTAB recently issued its Final Written Decision.
Adhering to its institution decision where it
RFEM’s Biosimilars IPR Dashboard provides current information on IPR proceedings related to proposed biosimilar products.
The PTAB recently instituted a second IPR of US Patent 9,296,821 (“the ’821 patent”), which covers certain uses of Rituxan® (rituximab), a monoclonal antibody marketed by Genentech and Biogen Pharmaceuticals. The ‘821 patent claims methods of treating low grade or follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) by administering rituximab during a chemotherapeutic regimen of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and
U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172 (“the ’172 patent”), a Biogen-owned patent covering a treatment regime for low-grade B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, has been a relatively frequent subject of our posts. We first wrote about it in March of 2017, reporting on the filing of Celltrion’s IPR petition against the patent, then again that May, reporting
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
Earlier this month, Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”) filed a copycat IPR petition directed against U.S. Patent No. 7,976,838 (“the ʼ838 patent”) that is essentially identical to a petition filed by Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”). The PTAB recently instituted review of the ʼ838 patent based on Pfizer’s petition in IPR2017-01923. Celltrion’s copycat petition was accompanied by a motion
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