The Federal Circuit held that supplemental applications submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to further support approval of a biosimilar product under Section 262(k) of the Biologics Price Competition and...more
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND - On May 8, 2019 in Amgen, Inc. v. Sandoz International GmbH, the Federal Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the district court correctly construed the claims 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
On December 14, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"). In Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc., 15-cv-1499 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the...more
In an opinion issued on December 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) preempts the use of state law to penalize...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
In a landmark ruling for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, a unanimous Supreme Court decided Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 582 U.S. ____, Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195 (June 12, 2017), its first biosimilar case governed by the...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 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 Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc, involving interpretation for the first time of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"), which was enacted...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
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
In a corrected brief filed October 25, 2016, defendant-appellee Hospira responded to Amgen’s opening brief on the merits seeking to overturn a discovery ruling that kept Hospira’s cell culture media information secret. ...more
The Federal Circuit has now issued two decisions interpreting the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA). In Amgen v. Sandoz, the first decision to interpret the BPCIA, the majority held that...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
As we’ve previously reported, Sandoz is seeking approval of an aBLA for its proposed biosimilar to Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim), which is currently the subject of a BPCIA litigation (Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-02581 (N.D. Cal.)) ...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
As we previously reported, on February 16, 2016, Sandoz petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari regarding the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the BPCIA’s “notice of commercial marketing”...more