Polsinelli Podcasts - FDA Denies Amgen Citizen Petition in Biosimilar Dispute
On August 12, 2024, Amgen filed Case No. 1:24-cv-08417 (D.N.J.) against Samsung Bioepis, alleging SB16 (denosumab), its proposed Prolia® / Xgeva® (denosumab) biosimilar, would infringe 34 of Amgen’s patents....more
On May 28, Amgen filed a BPCIA complaint in the District Court for the District of New Jersey against Celltrion related to its denosumab biosimilar of Amgen’s PROLIA and XGEVA. This is the second BPCIA litigation regarding...more
On May 28, 2024, Amgen filed a BPCIA litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-06497 (D.N.J.), against Celltrion’s proposed Prolia® / Xgeva® (denosumab) biosimilar CT-P41 alleging infringement of 29 of Amgen’s patents, including one...more
As we previously reported, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation recently granted Regeneron Pharmaceutical’s (“Regeneron”) motion to establish a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) for its aflibercept BPCIA litigation....more
Can a patentee really just take a pass on alleging that an accused product meets a limitation in an asserted claim, even where the case involves complex technology? That's the upshot of the court's decision in Lindis Biotech,...more
Welcome to our quarterly update relating to biologics and biosimilars, including post-grant and patent litigation challenges to blockbuster biologics. Since the enactment of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated yet another set of antibody genus claims, finding the case “materially indistinguishable” from those in the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States case, Amgen v....more
Case Name: Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Nos. 2022-1147, 2022-1149, 2022-1150, 2022-1151, 2023 WL 2994166 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2023) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Cunningham, and Stark presiding; Opinion by Lourie, J.) (Appeal from...more
The decision concerns the time of filing and admissibility of a revocation action at the Central Division when a parallel infringement action is filed at a local division (Art. 33(4) UPCA). Art 33(4) UPCA states that...more
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened its doors on June 1, 2023. Nineteen actions were initiated during the first six weeks, across a range of subject areas and case values. It had been widely assumed that large companies...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) addressed the enablement requirement under Section 112 of the Patent Act, placing this into sharper focus with the Amgen v. Sanofi case. This landmark...more
Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., No. 22-157 (U.S. 2023) - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision invalidating Amgen’s patent claims covering a genus of antibodies...more
The Supreme Court unanimously held last week in Amgen v. Sanofi that a patent’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the invention as defined by its claims. Amgen sued...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision in the case of Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, et al., No. 21-757. After a nine-year saga, beginning when Amgen sued Sanofi for allegedly...more
We previously reported on Janssen’s complaint alleging that Amgen’s filing of an aBLA for ustekinumab, a biosimilar of STELARA, infringes Amgen patents, and about Janssen seeking a preliminary injunction to block Amgen from...more
In a unanimous opinion announced on Thursday, May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed a Federal Circuit opinion invalidating claims in two patents owned by drugmaker Amgen for failing to properly enable claims directed to...more
On May 1, 2023, Amgen filed a BPCIA complaint in the District of New Jersey against Sandoz related to Sandoz’s denosumab biosimilar of Amgen’s PROLIA® and XGEVA®. This is Amgen’s first BPCIA case filed with respect to a...more
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Amgen v. Sanofi, the closely-watched case involving the enablement standard for patent claims, particularly as applied to functionally-defined genus claims. The question raised...more
On Monday, March 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. EDT, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, No. 21-757. William H. Milliken, a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate Practice...more
On November 4, 2022, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sanofi, No. 21-757, agreeing to review, “whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art...more
On November 4, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Amgen’s petition to review the “enablement requirement” of Section 112 of the Patent Act. See generally Amgen Inc., v. Sanofi, No. 21-757 (U.S. 2022). The Court’s decision will...more
High Court Will Tackle Proper Enablement Standard - Constituting something of a surprise, the Supreme Court on Friday, November 3rd granted Amgen's petition for certiorari on the second of the Questions Presented in its...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two significant decisions last year that affect the protection of biotechnology through the use of functional genus claims — Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi and Juno Therapeutics...more
As previously reported, Amgen sought leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (2020 FCA 188) affirming Justice Southcott’s decision that the relevant claims of its filgrastim (NEUPOGEN) patent were invalid...more
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Federal Circuit held that the use of broad functional claim language raises the bar for enablement. Specifically, the court held that defining an antibody based on binding to a certain protein...more