Innovent Biologics, Inc. announced the results of the Phase III ORIENT-31 study evaluating sintilimab in combination with BYVASDA (bevacizumab biosimilar) for the treatment of non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. ...more
In what appears to be a case of first impression, on August 23, 2021 U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a biosimilar applicant’s motion to dismiss...more
In December, in Amgen v. Hospira, 944 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019), a panel of the Federal Circuit issued the first decision applying the statutory Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) to BPCIA patent litigation. ...more
On July 23, 2019, Amgen, maker of the cancer treatment drug Neupogen (filgrastim), filed patent infringement claims in the Southern District of California against Tanvex Biopharma over Tanvex’s proposed filgrastim biosimilar...more
Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc., No. 2018-1993, Slip op. at 6 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2019) stems from a Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act action brought by Amgen against Coherus seeking FDA approval to market...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
Coherus announced today that it has executed settlement agreements with AbbVie that grant Coherus global, non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license rights under AbbVie’s intellectual property to commercialize CHS-1420, Coherus’...more
A lot has happened since we last addressed new biosimilar developments in January 2018. In the intervening months, there have been many significant developments related to FDA’s implementation of an efficient regulatory...more
As biosimilar litigation between Amgen, the maker of Enbrel® (etanercept), and Sandoz, the maker of biosimilar ErelziTM (etanercept-szzs) heads toward trial before Judge Claire Cecchi in the District of New Jersey, Sandoz is...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
On December 14, the Federal Circuit issued a decision that further clarifies the ground rules for disclosures of product information by manufacturers of biosimilar pharmaceutical products. In particular, the Federal Circuit...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
The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the Amgen v. Hospira appeal (16-2179) on August 10, 2017, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying Amgen’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The decision affirmed...more
In the third installment of the "Amgen v." trilogy of BPCIA Federal Circuit cases, the Court in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. answered a question that had been lingering since the very first case -- can a reference product...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
Hatch-Waxman litigators are accustomed to cases with multiple generic drug company defendants. Brand drug company plaintiffs often sue multiple defendants in the same district court, even when those defendants are not...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
Biosimilar manufacturers proceeding under the abbreviated approval pathway laid out in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) open themselves up to patent infringement litigation. But how soon can a...more
Judge Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has dismissed Genentech’s complaint against Amgen for allegedly failing to comply with the the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), but...more