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
The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) was passed as part of health reform signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. This year, the BPCIA turns 10. While the U.S. Biosimilars Pathway has...more
On February 21, 2019, Sandoz initiated a lawsuit against Amgen in the Northern District of California seeking a declaration that its biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim products do not infringe the Amgen’s ’997 patent. ...more
In this special mid-year edition, we take a look at the major highlights in Canadian life sciences and intellectual property law that we have reported on over the last six months, starting with one of the most closely-watched...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
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
Led by partner Natalia Gulyaeva, the Hogan Lovells Moscow team represented Novartis in a precedent case for pharma business proving that one can obtain an injunction using patent rights against a generic in Russia before the...more
Here are our picks for the top-five most significant legal developments regarding biosimilars in 2017...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
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
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 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
Yesterday’s unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sandoz v. Amgen injects much needed certainty into a difficult statute and streamlines the process for biosimilar products to enter the marketplace following FDA...more
In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme Court brought greater certainty to two key issues relating to the “patent dance” under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). First, the Court held that where a...more