Case Name: Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Apotex Corp., C.A. No. 20-cv-804-RGA, 2022 WL 2643532 (D. Del. July 8, 2022) (Hall, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Jevtana® (cabazitaxel); U.S. Patents Nos. 8,927,592 (“the ’592...more
CONVERTING FROM A PIV CERTIFICATION TO A PIII CERTIFICATION DOES NOT RID THE DISTRICT COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, BUT IT DOES WARRANT GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. Case Name: H....more
On November 14, 2019, the parties in the Amgen v. Accord (previously Apotex) follow-on BPCIA litigation filed a Stipulation of Dismissal, agreeing “to the dismissal, without prejudice, of all remaining claims and...more
Below are the major highlights in Canadian life sciences intellectual property and regulatory law that we have reported on in the first half of 2019....more
Amgen has sued Apotex in connection with Apotex’s efforts to market biosimilar versions of Amgen’s cancer drugs Neupogen (filgrastim) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim). In a complaint filed on August 7 in the Southern District of...more
Case Name: Apotex Inc. v. Alcon Research, Ltd., No. 16-3145-WTL-MJD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27016 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017) (Lawrence, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Pataday® (olopatadine); U.S. Patents Nos....more
Last week, Apotex filed a Citizen Petition requesting that FDA “take certain actions to ensure a robust approval process” for proposed biosimilars to Amgen’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim). Among its requests, Apotex asks that...more
Europe’s biosimilar market continues to develop, with biosimilars in new classes approved and pending in applications before the European Medicines Agency (EMA). 22 biosimilars are approved in eight different product classes...more
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
On November 21, 2016, Apotex submitted a reply brief in support of its petition for certiorari. A procedural note: the case was also distributed on November 21 for consideration at the Supreme Court’s private conference...more
On November 8, 2016, Amgen asked the Supreme Court to deny Apotex’s September 9, 2016 petition for review in Apotex v. Amgen, No. 16-332. Apotex had asked the High Court to clarify 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A) of the Biologics...more
Mylan filed an amicus brief in support of Apotex’s petition for certiorari in Amgen v. Apotex. Mylan’s arguments focus on the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the BCPIA as requiring 180 days of pre-marketing notice after...more
On October 14, 2016, Mylan Pharmaceuticals and the Biosimilars Council, a subsidiary of the Generic Pharmaceuticals Association (GPhA), filed amicus briefs in support of granting review in Apotex v. Amgen, No. 16-332. As...more
On October 3, 2016, Amgen filed a Notice of Appeal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and thereby laid the groundwork for its next move in the ongoing Amgen v. Apotex dispute. (D.I. 272.) - ...more
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
Many biosimilar applicants have resorted to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to challenge innovator patents as an alternative forum to district court litigation under the BPCIA. For those biosimilar applicants that...more
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
Originally posted in Law360, July 25, 2016. In Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed the 180-day notice provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 where the parties had...more
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
In Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit held that under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), “an applicant must provide a reference product sponsor with 180 days’ post-licensure notice before...more
On July 5, 2016, in Amgen v. Apotex (No. 2016-1308), the Federal Circuit again held that a biosimilar applicant must provide its biologic competitor with 180 days’ notice of intent to commercially market a biosimilar product....more
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
Last week in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016), a unanimous Federal Circuit panel ruled that under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), a biosimilar applicant...more
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
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