The Supreme Court of Canada has issued two IP decisions in the span of three days—both of which spell victory for IP rights-holders. One case confirms the availability of a novel form of worldwide injunction where a non-party...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
The District Court for the Southern District of Florida today ruled that Apotex’s proposed filgrastim and pegfilgrastim products will not infringe the asserted claims of Amgen’s ’138 patent (U.S. Patent. No. 8,952,138). The...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
On August 5, Apotex filed a petition for an IPR on Patent No. 8,952,138, owned by Amgen. The ’138 patent is the same patent that is being challenged in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in a case in...more
A few BPCIA litigation updates to wrap up the week for our readers, looking ahead to next week: ..The Federal Circuit issued its formal mandate in Amgen v. Apotex yesterday. With the issuance of the formal mandate, the...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
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
WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more
As we previously reported, on July 5, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining Apotex from launching its biosimilar version of Amgen’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) until it...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 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
In Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit rejected Apotex’s arguments that the 180-day pre-marketing notice requirement does not apply to biosimilar applicants who participated in the “patent dance” process of the Biologics...more
As we posted on July 5, 2016, the Federal Circuit has issued its decision in Amgen v. Apotex, affirming the district court’s (S.D. Fla, J. Cohn) order preliminarily enjoining Apotex from launching its biosimilar version of...more
In its July 5, 2016 decision in Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) for the second time. The Court reiterated that the BPCIA requires a biosimilar...more
Biosimilar Applicants Must Provide Notice of Commercial Launch: What You Need To Know - Case Background - In an opinion released today in Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit held biosimilar applicants who...more
The Federal Circuit issued its decision in Amgen v. Apotex (re: Apotex’s Neulasta biosimilar) this morning. The Court affirmed the district court, holding that the commercial-marketing provision in 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A)...more
Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (No. 2016-1308, 7/5/16) (Wallach, Bryson, Taranto) - July 5, 2016 12:05 PM - Taranto, J. In a suit under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, affirming the grant of a...more
Our long-time readers know that there are many legal, regulatory, and scientific questions surrounding the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), which was passed as part of the ACA and created a new...more
Apotex—Biosimilars Must Provide 180-Day Marketing Notice after FDA Approval July 06, 2016 According to the Federal Circuit, post-licensure notice 180 days before commercial marketing is mandatory for biosimilars....more
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit decided Amgen v. Apotex, No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016), its second decision interpreting the U.S. biosimilar statute, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation of Act of 2009...more
We previously reported that the FDA approved Celltrion’s Inflectra®, a biosimilar to Janssen’s Remicade® (infliximab) on April 5, 2016. A year prior to the approval, Janssen filed a motion for summary judgment and...more
Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Issues Presented by the On-Sale Bar - The “on-sale” bar to patentability refers to a sale or offer for sale of an invention that can invalidate the patent for that invention. The...more