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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently invalidated a University of Massachusetts (“UMass”) patent related to the treatment of the skin disease vitiligo in a post-grant review. (See Forte Biosciences Inc v....more
On August 12, 2024, Amgen filed a BPCIA complaint in the District Court for the District of New Jersey against Samsung Bioepis and Samsung Biologics related to Samsung Bioepis’s proposed biosimilar of Amgen’s PROLIA and...more
There now is increased interest about the written description and enablement requirements for patent applications claiming antibodies. This may stem from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, finding lack...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 21, Alvotech announced that it had entered into a license and supply agreement with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories SA for the commercialization of AVT03, a proposed denosumab biosimilar. Denosumab, sold by Amgen under the...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
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously held that “[i]f a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent specification must enable a person skilled in...more
Amgen and Sandoz reached a settlement in Case No. 1:23-cv-02406 (D.N.J.) on April 29 just hours before a New Jersey District Court Judge (Christine O’Hearn) was scheduled to announce her ruling on Amgen’s preliminary...more
As we previously reported, on January 11, 2024, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) moved to establish a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) for its aflibercept BPCIA litigation, and to transfer its case against...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
The Supreme Court’s lone patent case from last term does not break new ground on enablement law. The Court’s core holdings—that a patent specification must enable the full scope of the claimed invention and therefore that...more
On January 10, 2024, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) alleging infringement of 32 patents under the...more
Eight months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the enablement requirement in the May 18, 2023, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi decision.[1] Although the court did not change the law, affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for the...more
In light of the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published guidelines for PTO employees to use, regardless of technology, to ascertain compliance...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
In Baxalta, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a summary judgment finding from the District of Delaware (Judge Timothy B. Dyk) that claims 1-4, 19 and 20 of Baxalta’s patent directed...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
With only two precedential IP decisions coming down from the Federal Circuit in the second half of September, pickings were a little slim for blogging. That said, the opinion in Baxalta v. Genentech (2022-1461) — drafted by...more
Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1461 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the enablement requirement. It’s the first case to come before the Federal Circuit following the Supreme...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
On August 7, 2023, Formycon AG and Fresenius Kabi announced that they have reached a settlement with Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) in the United States relating to FYB202, a proposed ustekinumab biosimilar to STELARA®, marketed...more
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court held claims of two patents owned by Amgen, Inc. to be invalid for failing to enable persons skilled in the art to practice the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. §112. Amgen, Inc., et al....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