News & Analysis as of

Preliminary Injunctions Apotex

Bennett Jones LLP

Procure and Enforce—Canada's Highest Court Hands IP Owners Two Wins in Three Days

Bennett Jones LLP on

The Supreme Court of Canada has issued two IP decisions in the span of three days—both of which spell victory for IP rights-holders. One case confirms the availability of a novel form of worldwide injunction where a non-party...more

Goodwin

BPCIA Litigation Roundup (Fall 2016)

Goodwin on

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

Goodwin

Breaking News: Apotex Does not Infringe Amgen’s Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim Patent; Apotex is Permanently Enjoined From Launch...

Goodwin on

The District Court for the Southern District of Florida today ruled that Apotex’s proposed filgrastim and pegfilgrastim products will not infringe the asserted claims of Amgen’s ’138 patent (U.S. Patent. No. 8,952,138). The...more

McDermott Will & Emery

BPCIA 180-Day Notice of Intent to Market a Biosimilar Is Required, Enforceable by Injunction

In an opinion that details many intricacies of both the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) and related portions of the Patent Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a...more

Goodwin

Apotex Files Petition for IPR On Amgen’s Neulasta Patent

Goodwin on

On August 5, Apotex filed a petition for an IPR on Patent No. 8,952,138, owned by Amgen. The ’138 patent is the same patent that is being challenged in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in a case in...more

Goodwin

BPCIA Litigation Updates: Amgen v. Apotex, Immunex v. Sandoz, Janssen v. Celltrion

Goodwin on

A few BPCIA litigation updates to wrap up the week for our readers, looking ahead to next week: ..The Federal Circuit issued its formal mandate in Amgen v. Apotex yesterday. With the issuance of the formal mandate, the...more

Fish & Richardson

Amgen Can Enforce Notice of Commercial Marketing for Epogen® Biosimilar

Fish & Richardson on

Hospira’s motion to dismiss Count I of Amgen’s complaint has been denied, and Amgen will be able to seek declaratory judgment relief in the form of an injunction requiring Hospira to comply with the notice of commercial...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Courts Answer Key Questions Over the Reach of the BPCIA

Womble Bond Dickinson on

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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2016 #2

WilmerHale on

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more

Goodwin

Amgen v. Apotex: District Court Decides that the ’138 Patent is Not Invalid on Some Grounds; Enablement is Still an Open Issue

Goodwin on

As we previously reported, on July 5, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining Apotex from launching its biosimilar version of Amgen’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) until it...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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

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

Polsinelli

New Guidance on Mandatory Notice in the Biosimilar ‘Patent Dance’

Polsinelli on

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 16-1308, provides new guidance on the timeline of biosimilar approval and the impact to commercial marketing. The ruling weighed in on a key...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 & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Requires 180 Day Notice For All Biosimilars, Even After Patent Dance

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit rejected Apotex’s arguments that the 180-day pre-marketing notice requirement does not apply to biosimilar applicants who participated in the “patent dance” process of the Biologics...more

Goodwin

Amgen v. Apotex: Analysis of the Fed. Cir. Opinion

Goodwin on

As we posted on July 5, 2016, the Federal Circuit has issued its decision in Amgen v. Apotex, affirming the district court’s (S.D. Fla, J. Cohn) order preliminarily enjoining Apotex from launching its biosimilar version of...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

Goodwin

Breaking News: CAFC Affirms in Amgen v. Apotex

Goodwin on

The Federal Circuit issued its decision in Amgen v. Apotex (re: Apotex’s Neulasta biosimilar) this morning. The Court affirmed the district court, holding that the commercial-marketing provision in 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A)...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - July 2016

WilmerHale on

Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (No. 2016-1308, 7/5/16) (Wallach, Bryson, Taranto) - July 5, 2016 12:05 PM - Taranto, J. In a suit under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, affirming the grant of a...more

Mintz - Health Care Viewpoints

6-Month Notice from a Biosimilar Sponsor Always Required — Says Federal Circuit

Our long-time readers know that there are many legal, regulatory, and scientific questions surrounding the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), which was passed as part of the ACA and created a new...more

Morgan Lewis

Apotex—Biosimilars Must Provide 180-Day Marketing Notice after FDA Approval

Morgan Lewis on

Apotex—Biosimilars Must Provide 180-Day Marketing Notice after FDA Approval July 06, 2016 According to the Federal Circuit, post-licensure notice 180 days before commercial marketing is mandatory for biosimilars....more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Federal Circuit Decides Amgen v. Apotex, Holds that 180-Day Notice of Commercial Marketing is Always Mandatory in Biosimilar...

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit decided Amgen v. Apotex, No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016), its second decision interpreting the U.S. biosimilar statute, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation of Act of 2009...more

Goodwin

Update in Jannsen v. Celltrion: Parties Stipulate that Celltrion Will Not Sell Infliximab Biosimilar Before September 15, 2016

Goodwin on

We previously reported that the FDA approved Celltrion’s Inflectra®, a biosimilar to Janssen’s Remicade® (infliximab) on April 5, 2016. A year prior to the approval, Janssen filed a motion for summary judgment and...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

32 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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