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
On November 13, The Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming a district court judgment that Apotex did not infringe Amgen’s recombinant protein patent in its abbreviated Biologics License Applications referencing Amgen’s...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
Patent owner Amgen has appealed to the Federal Circuit seeking to overturn a non-infringement ruling with respect to Apotex’s manufacturing processes for its biosimilar versions of Amgen’s NEULASTA® (pegfilgrastim) and...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 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
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
On September 9, 2016, Apotex Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., Case No. 2016-1308. This case involves...more
On September 9, 2016, Apotex Inc. petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s July 2016 ruling in Amgen v. Apotex (Apotex) holding that the 180-day commercial...more
In what may be the first decision on the merits in a patent infringement suit brought under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida has found that...more
Amgen’s claims against Apotex’s Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) and Neupogen® (filgrastim) biosimilars have failed at the district court level. On September 6, 2016, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida found no...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
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
On July 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) unanimously ruled in Amgen v. Apotex that biosimilar makers must provide brand-name rivals with a 180-day notice only after receipt of...more
The repercussions of Amgen v. Apotex, No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016) (“Apotex”), continue as BPCIA litigants submit letters to their respective judges addressing the Federal Circuit’s latest ruling on the Act’s notice...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’s recent decision in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 16-1308, provides new guidance on the timeline of biosimilar approval and the impact to commercial marketing. The ruling weighed in on a key...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