News & Analysis as of

Generic Drugs Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Apotex

Robins Kaplan LLP

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Apotex Corp. Jevtana® (Cabazitaxel)

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Apotex Corp., C.A. No. 20-cv-804-RGA, 2022 WL 2643532 (D. Del. July 8, 2022) (Hall, J.)  Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Jevtana® (cabazitaxel); U.S. Patents Nos. 8,927,592 (“the ’592...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

H. Lundbeck A/S v. Apotex Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

CONVERTING FROM A PIV CERTIFICATION TO A PIII CERTIFICATION DOES NOT RID THE DISTRICT COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, BUT IT DOES WARRANT GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. Case Name: H....more

Smart & Biggar

2019 Mid-Year Highlights in Canadian Life Sciences IP

Smart & Biggar on

Below are the major highlights in Canadian life sciences intellectual property and regulatory law that we have reported on in the first half of 2019....more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Apotex Inc. v. Alcon Research, Ltd.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Apotex Inc. v. Alcon Research, Ltd., No. 16-3145-WTL-MJD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27016 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017) (Lawrence, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Pataday® (olopatadine); U.S. Patents Nos....more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Can FDA Implement The BPCIA As The CAFC Suggested?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit held that under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), “an applicant must provide a reference product sponsor with 180 days’ post-licensure notice before...more

Fenwick & West Life Sciences Group

Federal Circuit: A Biosimilar Applicant Must Provide Notice of Intent to Market a Biosimilar Product, No Exceptions

On July 5, 2016, in Amgen v. Apotex (No. 2016-1308), the Federal Circuit again held that a biosimilar applicant must provide its biologic competitor with 180 days’ notice of intent to commercially market a biosimilar product....more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Amgen and Hospira Square Off Over BPCIA Private Right of Action After Amgen v. Apotex Ruling

Amgen and Hospira have fired off dueling letters to the court in their litigation over Amgen’s Epogen biosimilar, debating whether the U.S. biosimilar statute, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009...more

Fenwick & West LLP

No Exception to Statutory Requirement that a Biosimilar Applicant Provide Notice of Intent to Market its Product

Fenwick & West LLP on

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Backs Amgen on Key Provision of Biosimilars Statute

The Federal Circuit on Tuesday ruled that the 180-day notice of commercial marketing provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) is a requirement for all biosimilar applicants regardless of whether...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Federal Circuit Invites FDA's Early Licensure of Biosimilars to Encourage Pre-Launch Resolution of Patent Disputes

Foley Hoag LLP on

In its July 5, 2016 decision in Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) for the second time. The Court reiterated that the BPCIA requires a biosimilar...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Rules on Biosimilar Notice Requirement

Knobbe Martens on

Biosimilar Applicants Must Provide Notice of Commercial Launch: What You Need To Know - Case Background - In an opinion released today in Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit held biosimilar applicants who...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Fed Circuit’s “Amgen v. Apotex” Decision: Clarification of a BPCIA Riddle (Unless, of course, the Supreme Court Steps In)

On July 5, the Federal Circuit issued another important decision regarding the meaning of certain provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). See Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., Fed. Cir. Case No....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Sham Citizen Petition Claim, Summary Judgment on False Advertising Claims **WEB ONLY**

Addressing Sherman Act and Lanham Act claims arising out of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claim...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

MBHB Snippets: A review of developments in Intellectual Property Law - Volume 14, Issue 2 (Spring 2016)

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Standing Alone – The Current Status of the BPCIA’s Notice of Commercial Marketing

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

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Update - October 2015

McDermott Will & Emery on

Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

REMS and Antitrust: Latest Litigation Lessons

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Brand name pharmaceutical companies have long stood in the way of generic pharmaceuticals entering the market. To keep generics at bay, brands have used a variety tactics, including ultimately unlawful ones like fraudulently...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of a Disclaimed Patent Warranted in Hatch-Waxman - Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

Addressing the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal for lack of case or controversy of an action seeking...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., 2014-1282, -1291 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5134 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2015) (Circuit Judges Taranto, Mayer, and Clevenger presiding; Opinion by Taranto, J.) (Appeal from N.D. Ill.,...more

19 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide