Supreme Court Decision Allows Faster Marketing of Biosimilars

Robinson+Cole Health Law Diagnosis
Contact

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 notify the manufacturer of biologic reference products (Sponsor) that they intend to commercially market a biosimilar drug. The Court’s decision addresses two cases in the same opinion: Sandoz v. Amgen and Amgen v. Sandoz

The cases involve the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (the Act). The Act created an abbreviated path to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for “biosimilars” – products that are “highly similar” biological products previously approved by the FDA.  In pertinent part, the Act states that biosimilar manufacturers must provide at least 180 days’ notice to the Sponsors manufacturing the corresponding biologic before commercially marketing a biosimilar. The Act also established a process for resolving patent disputes between manufacturer of biologics and biosimilars.

One question before the Court was whether the biosimilar manufacturer can provide the marketing notice before the biosimilar receives FDA approval, or whether it must delay notification until after its receives FDA approval.  Justice Clarence Thomas, delivering the opinion of the Court, stated that the biosimilar manufacturer may provide notice before receiving FDA approval.  The decision states that the Act “contains a single timing requirement: The applicant must provide notice at least 180 days prior to marketing its biosimilar.”  The Supreme Court’s ruling reversed a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which held that notice could not take place until after the biosimilar received FDA approval . The ruling also vacated and remanded a second issue regarding whether certain requirements in the patent infringement review sections of the Act can be enforced by an injunction.  The case also leaves open questions under California’s unfair competition law.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robinson+Cole Health Law Diagnosis | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Robinson+Cole Health Law Diagnosis
Contact
more
less

Robinson+Cole Health Law Diagnosis on:

Reporters on Deadline

"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.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.