ACI’s virtual Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA equips early-career professionals with the legal and regulatory fluency needed to contribute meaningfully to product strategy and...more
Decisions in the Amgen v. Sandoz case involving Sandoz’s biosimilar versions of Amgen’s Neupogen® and Neulasta® drugs have provided significant guidance to biosimilar litigants over the years. ...more
Courts have begun to shape the contours of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) and the progress of biosimilar litigation, but the use of declaratory judgment actions by biosimilar manufacturers...more
Since the passage of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), 2017 has been the most active year yet for drug manufacturers. Fish attorneys Tasha Francis, Jenny Shmuel, and Brianna Chamberlin addressed the...more
The Situation: The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act was considered in a November 2017 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Result: The court found that the commercial...more
On November 13th, in an opinion drafted by Judge Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Southern District Court of Florida’s judgment that Apotex’s biosimilar versions of Neulasta® and Neupogen® do not infringe Amgen’s...more
While the Supreme Court held in Amgen v. Sandoz that biosimilar applicants cannot be forced with a federal injunction to provide a copy of their biosimilar application (aBLA) and manufacturing information to the reference...more
A theme emerging in biosimilar litigation is when –and how much—discovery is available to reference product sponsors. The Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sandoz grappled with this issue in the spring, as it decided whether...more
On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., marking the first time the Court has interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") for the approval of...more
On May 10, 2017, Amgen filed a complaint in the District of Delaware asserting that, under section 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(i) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), Coherus infringed Amgen’s U.S....more
On April 26, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. from Sandoz counsel (Deanne E. Maynard), Amgen counsel (Seth P. Waxman), and presenting the opinion of the United States, an Assistant to...more
On April 26, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. Sandoz was represented by Deanne E. Maynard, and Amgen was represented by Seth P. Waxman. In addition, Anthony A. Yang presented the...more
On Wednesday, April 26, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. case. This case involves the interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"), which will be...more
Patent owner Amgen has appealed to the Federal Circuit seeking to overturn a non-infringement ruling with respect to Apotex’s manufacturing processes for its biosimilar versions of Amgen’s NEULASTA® (pegfilgrastim) and...more
2016 was a record year for the development of biologics in the United States. Below, we summarize a few key biosimilar developments to keep an eye on in 2017. SCOTUS Review of Amgen v. Sandoz - In 2016, Amgen,...more
Responding to the Supreme Court’s request for its views, the Solicitor General recently recommended granting certiorari and reversing some of the Federal Circuit’s key holdings in Amgen v. Sandoz (Nos. 15-1039 & 15-1195)....more
Below is our Fall 2016 update on the U.S. patent litigations concerning proposed or approved biosimilar products. For additional details, please consult our BPCIA Litigation Summary Chart or our previous quarterly update...more
On November 8, 2016, Amgen asked the Supreme Court to deny Apotex’s September 9, 2016 petition for review in Apotex v. Amgen, No. 16-332. Apotex had asked the High Court to clarify 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A) of the Biologics...more
Since the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was signed into law in 2010, only a small handful of abbreviated Biologics Licensing Applications (“aBLAs”) have been filed and of those the FDA has...more
Last week in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016), a unanimous Federal Circuit panel ruled that under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), a biosimilar applicant...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit described the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside of an enigma" in the Amgen v. Sandoz case. Nevertheless, one of the provisions of...more
Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Issues Presented by the On-Sale Bar - The “on-sale” bar to patentability refers to a sale or offer for sale of an invention that can invalidate the patent for that invention. The...more
In March 2015, the FDA approved the first biosimilar application, which was for a follow-on biologic drug of Amgen’s reference product NEUPOGEN® (filgrastim). Yet, before the applicant, Sandoz, could launch its biosimilar...more
As we reported earlier, Amgen recently filed suit under the BPCIA against Sandoz and Lek Pharmaceuticals in the Northern District of California. Amgen alleges that Sandoz’s submission of an aBLA for its pegfilgrastim product...more
Congress passed the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) in 2009 in an effort to bring biosimilar drug products to market. The goal was for the BPCIA to mimic for biologic drugs the Hatch-Waxman statute...more