Episode 185: America’s Bioeconomy with Sarah Glaven, White House Research Biologist
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 167: Dr. Ehsan Samei & Dr. Susan Halabi, Triangle CERSI
I Wish I Knew What I Know Now: Conversations with AGG on FDA Issues - Fee Waivers for Small Businesses: Who Qualifies for the Small Business User Fee Waiver for Drugs and Biologics and How to Apply
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Dr. Claire Fraser
Nota Bene Episode 71: Shifting Regulatory Landscapes at the FDA: Cannabis, Vaping and Intelligent Medical Devices with Allison Fulton
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: FDA Regulatory and Patent Implications of the Transition Provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Expedited Review Programs for Drugs and Biologics
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Real-World Evidence in Drug Development and FDA Submissions
A changing competitive landscape: the role of the ITC in the biosimilars space
As of the end of 2019, reference product sponsors (“RPSs”) have filed dozens of patent infringement cases against biosimilar manufacturers under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). The doctrine of...more
Many reference product sponsors (“RPSs”) of biologic products have sought extensive patent protection for their manufacturing processes, and RPSs commonly assert those patents against biosimilar manufacturers in Biologics...more
Since the passage of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), 2017 has been the most active year yet for drug manufacturers. Fish attorneys Tasha Francis, Jenny Shmuel, and Brianna Chamberlin addressed the...more
2017 was an eventful year for biosimilars in the U.S. As the number of biosimilar filings increased, important legal and regulatory decisions changed the strategic landscape of the biosimilars market for both innovators and...more
In an opinion issued on December 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) preempts the use of state law to penalize...more
Last week the Biosimilars Council submitted an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit remand proceedings for Amgen v. Sandoz, arguing that Amgen’s state-law claims for Sandoz’s failure to comply with the patent dance’s...more
On June 12, 2017, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Thomas in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the United States Supreme Court considered the complex statutory scheme that attempts to expedite resolution of patent...more
On Monday, June 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that manufacturers making biosimilars of biologic drugs did not have to wait until after gaining federal approval of the biosimilar to...more
SCOTUS Narrows Opportunity For ITC Section 337 Jurisdiction Over Imported Biosimilars Based On 180-Day Notice Provision - In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 F.3d 1347, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit held that...more
On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Sandoz v. Amgen, interpreting key provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) in favor of biosimilar manufacturers...more
The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., marking the first time the Court has interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) for the approval of biosimilar drugs. On...more
On June 12, the Supreme Court decided Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the first case under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) to reach the high court. The BPCIA establishes a regulatory pathway for...more
On June 12, 2017, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a drug manufacturer may give a required 180-day notice of its intent to market a biosimilar drug before receiving FDA...more
The Supreme Court could issue its decision in the Amgen v. Sandoz biosimilar patent dance case any day now. Last week I participated in a panel discussion with industry stakeholders considering how the decision might–or might...more
On April 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195), on appeal from the Federal Circuit's July 21, 2015, opinion interpreting various provisions of the Biologics...more
President Donald J. Trump has now been in office for just over one hundred days. Observers have been quick to mark this milestone and assess the new administration’s performance, especially on headline-grabbing issues like...more
All nine Supreme Court Justices heard argument on Wednesday, April 26, in Sandoz Inc., v. Amgen Inc. The Supreme Court is reviewing interpretations of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) made by the...more
We recently updated our chart that tracks state biosimilar substitution laws to include new laws in Iowa and Montana. These new laws bring the total number of states with biosimilar substitution laws to 27, plus Puerto Rico....more
On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sandoz, 794. F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Sandoz v. Amgen, 773 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2014), appealed from the Federal Circuit. The petitions involve the...more
2016 was a record year for the development of biologics in the United States. Below, we summarize a few key biosimilar developments to keep an eye on in 2017. SCOTUS Review of Amgen v. Sandoz - In 2016, Amgen,...more
On Friday, January 13, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sandoz (Nos. 15-1039 & 15-1195). The Supreme Court originally deferred its decision on the parties’ certiorari petitions in order to consider the...more
On Friday, Jan. 13, the Supreme Court granted the appellant’s petition and the respondent’s cross-petition for a writ of certiorari in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. This is the first time the Court will construe the Biologics...more
On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted Sandoz’s petition for certiorari and Amgen’s cross-petition in Amgen v. Sandoz, case nos. 15-1039 and 15-1195. The two cases were consolidated, and an hour was allotted for oral...more
As the Biologics market is predicted to be a $250 billion market in the next few years, it is not surprising that parties embroiled in biosimilar litigation go to the mat. Both Apotex and Sandoz filed cert petitions this year...more
Responding to the Supreme Court’s request for its views, the Solicitor General recently recommended granting certiorari and reversing some of the Federal Circuit’s key holdings in Amgen v. Sandoz (Nos. 15-1039 & 15-1195)....more