Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) filed a Complaint on November 22 against Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, alleging infringement...more
Introduction - The biosimilar pathway was designed to increase competition for biologics and reduce healthcare costs. Yet 2020 saw a slowdown in biosimilar activity with the lowest number of annual biosimilar approvals since...more
This year, the BPCIA turns 10! As we prepare to enter the next decade of this revolutionary law, we cordially invite you to join us for ACI’s 11th Annual Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics Summit, in a fully virtual,...more
A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to and has no clinically meaningful differences from an FDA-approved reference biological product. Biosimilar applicants have a number of choices to make on the path...more
Under Section 262(l)(8)(A) of the BPCIA, a biosimilar maker must provide notice to the reference product sponsor 180 days before the date of first commercial marketing of the biosimilar. ...more
The Federal Circuit held that supplemental applications submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to further support approval of a biosimilar product under Section 262(k) of the Biologics Price Competition and...more
On April 17, 2018, Judge Sleet of the District of Delaware dismissed Genentech’s declaratory judgment claim seeking to hold Amgen to representations made in its 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(3)(B) patent dance statements that it would...more
We previously reported that in the ongoing Genentech v. Amgen litigation regarding Amgen’s proposed bevacizumab biosimilar, Mvasi™, Amgen moved to dismiss Genentech’s declaratory judgement counts relating to when Amgen could...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Genentech, Inc. et al. v. Amgen Inc., Civil Action No. 17-1407-GMS (D.Del. April 17, 2018), the Court granted defendant Amgen’s motion to dismiss the claim of...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
Genentech filed a complaint last Friday in the District of Delaware against Pfizer for infringement of 40 patents under the BPCIA regarding PF-05280014, Pfizer’s biosimilar of Herceptin® (trastuzumab). According to the...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
District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more
In borrowing a page from the '80s band "Men Without Hats," on June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court brought greater certainty for both biosimilar applicants and originator companies. In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme...more
On July 6, 2017, Hospira filed a publically available redacted version of its brief responding to Amgen’s motion for a preliminary injunction (PI). As we previously reported, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sandoz...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
In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (which you can read more about here), the Supreme Court held that 42 USC § 262(l)(9)(C) sets forth the exclusive federal remedy for failing to provide a copy of the biosimilar application to the...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, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two important questions under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"), which provides an abbreviated pathway for the approval of generic biologics: (i) the...more
On a sweltering hot D.C. morning, those of us anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s opinion in its first case involving biosimilar biological products finally exhaled. The June 12, 2017 opinion followed the parties’ oral...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
In a unanimous decision issued on June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court for the first time interpreted key provisions of the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). See Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., No. 15-1195...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