Webinar: Orange Book listing sheets under the microscope
Key Considerations for Reshoring U.S. Drug Manufacturing
Drug Pricing Initiatives During the Trump Presidency
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Patent law in Europe: What pharmaceutical companies need to know
EU excessive pricing laws
Polsinelli Podcast - Generic Drugs to Market - What's the Climate in 2014?
Judge Andrews of the District of Delaware recently denied Novartis’s request for a preliminary injunction against MSN Pharmaceuticals. Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. MSN Pharm. Inc., Civil Action No. 20-md-2930-RGA, Dkt. No. 1456...more
ANDA litigation, pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, has become more complicated over the years since enactment of the statute in 1984, with more patents being asserted and more parties participating over the opportunity to...more
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC. V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware - Summary: The scope of a contract term may...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding, based largely on the prosecution history, that disputed “wherein” clauses were limiting and therefore the grant of a preliminary injunction...more
ALLERGAN SALES, LLC v. SANDOZ, INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: A “wherein” clause can be limiting if it is material to...more
In Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2018-2207, Aug. 29, 2019), the Federal Circuit held that “wherein” clauses in a patent claim were limitations because the “wherein” elements were material to patentability....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 September 28, 2016, the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Mylan v. Warner Chilcott, upholding the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s holding on summary judgement that Defendants’ “product hopping” conduct did not violate...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
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 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
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
In March 2015, the FDA approved the first biosimilar application, which was for a follow-on biologic drug of Amgen’s reference product NEUPOGEN® (filgrastim). Yet, before the applicant, Sandoz, could launch its biosimilar...more
Case Name: Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., Inc., Civ. No. 14-1078 (JBS/KMW), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50082 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2015) (Simandle, C.J.) - Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Abilify®...more
In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (No. 2015-1499), a fractured panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided two issues of first impression relating to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009...more
On May 22, 2015, in a much-watched case, the Second Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against Actavis PLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Forest Laboratories, LLC (collectively “Actavis” or “Forest”), finding that...more
We’ve previously covered the New York State Attorney General’s (“NYS AG”) lawsuit against Actavis PLC and Forest Laboratories seeking to prevent them from discontinuing sales of the Forest drug Namenda IR, which is used to...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s opinion (issued May 22, 2015 with a public, redacted version available May 28, 2015), affirming the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in State of New York v....more
On April 20, 2015, FDA filed a brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) or Preliminary Injunction (“PI”), addressed how Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Otsuka Pharmaceutical...more
Last week, we briefly reported on the injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Attorney General’s “product hopping” suit against Actavis and its subsidiary, Forest...more
Yesterday, Judge Robert Sweet granted the New York Attorney General’s request to block Actavis and its New York-based subsidiary Forest Laboratories LLC from pulling Namenda, a dementia drug commonly used to treat...more