Can Food Really Be Medicine? Transforming Health Care One Bite at a Time – Diagnosing Health Care Video Podcast
Federal Court Strikes Down FDA Rule on LDTs - Thought Leaders in Health Law®
Podcast - Hot Topics in FDA Regulation: GLP-1s, LDTs, AI and More
Prescribing GLP-1 Medications: Be Aware of Legal Limitations
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 22: What Global Companies Need to Know About Navigating FDA Regulations and U.S. Market Entry
AI and Pharmacovigilance Under the FDA's New Emerging Drug Safety Technology Program – The Good Bot Podcast
GLP-1 Drugs and Cultivated Meat: What’s the Impact on the Food and Agriculture Industry?
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 202: Life Sciences Startups and Industry Developments with Gil Price, Life Sciences Leader
The Future of Laboratory Testing Just Got a Little Clearer: FDA's Final Rule on LDTs – Diagnosing Health Care
Video: Food for Thought and Thoughts on Food: Innovating USDA Science with Sanah Baig, Deputy Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
The FDA's Response to AI Medical Innovation — The Good Bot Podcast
FDA Releases Laboratory-Developed Tests Final Rule – Thought Leaders in Health Law
Litigating Nutrition: Class Action Battles Over Dietary Supplements – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Changes in FDA, Cannabis Policies and AI Developments
Ad Law Tool Kit Show – Episode 2 – Marketing FDA-Regulated Products
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 18
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 17
A Look Into the FDA and USDA Regulatory Regimes
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 167: Dr. Ehsan Samei & Dr. Susan Halabi, Triangle CERSI
On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to submit a brief expressing the views of the United States—dramatically increasing the likelihood that the Court will eventually grant review—in Hikma...more
This month the Supreme Court denied certiorari on Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., and in doing so, seemingly indicated its support for a broad interpretation of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor...more
I recently learned of Eli Lilly & Co.’s (“Lilly”) recent lawsuit against FDA from Nicole DeFeudis, who interviewed me for her Endpoints News story about the case. Lilly’s lawsuit, filed in September 2024 in the Southern...more
On Monday, October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) denied United Therapeutics Corporation (“UTC”) petition for certiorari clearing the way for Liquidia Corporation (“Liquidia”) to launch its Yutrpia® drug product....more
Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., has garnered significant attention, especially concerning the application of the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. §...more
On May 15, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s (“Teva”) petition for certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, ending a nearly nine-year court...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 22-37, locking in the Federal Circuit’s second panel decision (hereafter “GSK v. Teva”), which held that Teva’s attempted...more
The Supreme Court is expected to consider Teva’s pending petition for certiorari in the highly anticipated GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. on May 11, 2023, a case that could carry enormous implications for the...more
Whether you are pursuing patents on your new technology, thinking about bringing patent infringement litigation or defending patent infringement claims in court, knowing the important developments in patent law will help you...more
Here are our picks for the top-five most significant legal developments regarding biosimilars in 2017...more
Last June, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme Court handed down its interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") for the approval of biosimilar drugs. As we reported at the time, the...more
On June 12, 2017, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the United States Supreme Court considered the complex statutory scheme that attempts to expedite resolution of patent...more
On Monday, June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that manufacturers making biosimilars of biologic drugs did not have to wait until after gaining federal approval of the biosimilar to...more
SCOTUS Narrows Opportunity For ITC Section 337 Jurisdiction Over Imported Biosimilars Based On 180-Day Notice Provision - In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 F.3d 1347, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit held that...more
In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court has clarified certain portions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA), concluding (1) that biosimilar makers do not have to wait for...more
On June 13, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sandoz v. Amgen. In doing so, it answered two questions raised under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI). First, is an injunction...more
In SANDOZ INC. v. AMGEN INC. et al., the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion ruled that biosimilar makers can give their required 180-day statutory notice of sales before their products win approval by the...more
In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., No. 15-1039 (U.S. June 12, 2017) the Supreme Court held (i) that biosimilar applicants may provide the requisite 180-days’ notice of commercial marketing to the reference product sponsor even...more
Reference product sponsors (RPSs) and biosimilar manufacturers were hoping the Supreme Court of the United States would clarify two aspects of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) in the Amgen v....more
On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195, in which it held that (a) a manufacturer of a licensed biological product cannot obtain federal injunctive relief to enforce 42...more
We previously reported on the oral argument in Sandoz v. Amgen. Justice Thomas has delivered the opinion for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Sandoz v. Amgen. Briefly, the Supreme Court held that notice of commercial...more
On April 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195), on appeal from the Federal Circuit's July 21, 2015, opinion interpreting various provisions of the Biologics...more
The transcript of the April 26 Supreme Court oral argument in Sandoz v. Amgen has been posted online. As we covered briefly, the questioning during today’s argument focused primarily on three points....more
As a reminder to our readers, tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Amgen v. Sandoz regarding the following questions: ..Whether a biosimilar applicant is required by 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2)(A) to provide...more