Introduction
On January 16, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a patent dispute that could reshape the landscape of generic drug competition and patent enforcement.
This case centers on a contentious question: If a generic drug is labeled only for non-infringing uses (a so-called
As a firm responsible for managing global portfolios for pharmaceutical companies, we closely follow and seek to stay abreast of developments regarding patentability in various jurisdictions. We recently reviewed the Unified Patent Court (UPC) first decision – invalidating EP Patent No. 3,666,797 B1 – and provided a summary of that case. This analysis will focus
After the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States regarding Teva Pharms USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al., the Solicitor General filed its brief amicus curiae on March 29, 2023. The Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court to grant Teva’s petition for a
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday, November 4, 2022, to review the standard for enablement of genus claims after the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi. We have previously covered Amgen’s petition for a writ of certiorari and the multiple amicus curiae briefs submitted in the case. As detailed below, the Supreme
On April 18, 2022, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in the Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, Inc. case, which involves important questions of enablement for genus claims. We have previously covered the Federal Circuit’s decision, Amgen’s petition for a writ of certiorari
Last week, a federal court in Delaware unsealed an opinion supporting its grant of summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 7,033,590 (“the ’590 Patent”) is invalid for lack of enablement.[1] The ’590 Patent is owned by Baxalta Inc. (“Baxalta”), a subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (“Takeda”).
As we previously discussed,
At the end of last month, three amicus curiae briefs were filed following the petition for a writ of certiorari in the Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi, Inc. case. We previously discussed the petition for a writ of certiorari in detail here.
The first amicus brief was submitted by the Association of University of Technology
As we have previously discussed, on February 11, 2021, the Federal Circuit decided Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, et al. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of JMOL that Amgen’s Repatha® patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 and 8,859,741) were invalid for lack of enablement. The claims at issue
In a precedential opinion in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, et al., No. 20-1074 (Fed. Cir. 2021) issued on February 11, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting JMOL that Amgen’s Repatha® patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 and 8,859,741)
Over four years ago, in October 2014, Amgen initiated a patent infringement suit against Sanofi and Regeneron regarding biologics for treatment of high cholesterol.[1] The case reached an important milestone recently as a jury entered a verdict largely upholding the validity of Amgen’s asserted patents, to the disappointment of Sanofi and Regeneron. A similar