News & Analysis as of

Notice Requirements Apotex

McDermott Will & Emery

BPCIA 180-Day Notice of Intent to Market a Biosimilar Is Required, Enforceable by Injunction

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

Womble Bond Dickinson

Courts Answer Key Questions Over the Reach of the BPCIA

Womble Bond Dickinson on

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Can FDA Implement The BPCIA As The CAFC Suggested?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Amgen v. Apotex, the Federal Circuit held that under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), “an applicant must provide a reference product sponsor with 180 days’ post-licensure notice before...more

Goodwin

Amgen v. Apotex: District Court Decides that the ’138 Patent is Not Invalid on Some Grounds; Enablement is Still an Open Issue

Goodwin on

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

Williams Mullen

Biosimilar “Patent Dance” Does Not Permit Sidestepping of 180-Day Notice

Williams Mullen on

On July 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) unanimously ruled in Amgen v. Apotex that biosimilar makers must provide brand-name rivals with a 180-day notice only after receipt of...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Backs Amgen on Key Provision of Biosimilars Statute

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Requires 180 Day Notice For All Biosimilars, Even After Patent Dance

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

Goodwin

Hospira to Court: Amgen v. Apotex does not address the specific question raised by Hospira’s Motion to Dismiss in Amgen v. Hospira

Goodwin on

The Federal Circuit's July 5, 2016 opinion in Amgen v. Apotex is already being picked up and analyzed in other BPCIA litigation: in Amgen v. Hospira, Hospira has submitted the Federal Circuit’s opinion to the District Court...more

Goodwin

Amgen v. Apotex: Analysis of the Fed. Cir. Opinion

Goodwin on

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

Foley Hoag LLP

Federal Circuit Invites FDA's Early Licensure of Biosimilars to Encourage Pre-Launch Resolution of Patent Disputes

Foley Hoag LLP on

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Rules on Biosimilar Notice Requirement

Knobbe Martens on

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

Goodwin

Breaking News: CAFC Affirms in Amgen v. Apotex

Goodwin on

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

Morgan Lewis

Apotex—Biosimilars Must Provide 180-Day Marketing Notice after FDA Approval

Morgan Lewis on

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Federal Circuit Decides Amgen v. Apotex, Holds that 180-Day Notice of Commercial Marketing is Always Mandatory in Biosimilar...

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Fed Circuit’s “Amgen v. Apotex” Decision: Clarification of a BPCIA Riddle (Unless, of course, the Supreme Court Steps In)

On July 5, the Federal Circuit issued another important decision regarding the meaning of certain provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). See Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., Fed. Cir. Case No....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

MBHB Snippets: A review of developments in Intellectual Property Law - Volume 14, Issue 2 (Spring 2016)

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

Goodwin

Amgen v. Hospira: Court Considers Issues Regarding the Scope of Discovery and the RPS’s Ability to Assert Additional Patents in...

Goodwin on

In a recent hearing held in Amgen v. Hospira, the parties offered arguments on some novel issues relating to litigation under the BPCIA, particularly: - ..Whether a reference product sponsor (“RPS”) can compel a...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Does the "Notice of Commercial Marketing" Provision in the BPCIA Stand Alone? -- Amgen v. Apotex Case Preview

According to the Federal Circuit website, the appeal from the Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc. case will be argued on April 4, 2016 in Courtroom 402. This case is an appeal from a decision by Judge Cohn of the Southern District of...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Florida Federal Court Enjoins Apotex from Selling Neulasta Biosimilar for 180 Days After Approval

On December 9, a federal district court in Florida issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Apotex from selling a proposed biosimilar version of Amgen’s cancer drug Neulasta for 180 days after the biosimilar is approved. ...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Court Rules that Apotex Must Give Amgen Notice Upon Biosimilar Licensure

Since August 2015, Amgen and Apotex have been locked in litigation in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida related to Apotex’s pegfilgrastim product, which is purported to be biosimilar to Amgen’s...more

Kilpatrick

Amgen v Apotex - 180-Day Advance Notice of Biosimilar Marketing is Mandatory

Kilpatrick on

The Federal Circuit in July said in its Amgen-Sandoz decision that declining to share information under the biosimilars pathway “patent dance” made the 180-day advance-notice provision mandatory; however, it left open the...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Apotex Follows the BPCIA “Patent Dance” Again

The first biosimilar makers to file regulatory applications with FDA attempted to bypass all or a subset of the patent litigation provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA). Apotex, the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Update - October 2015

McDermott Will & Emery on

Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Amgen and Apotex do the Biosimilar Patent Dance

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Amgen has filed a complaint under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), asserting that a biosimilar application filed by Apotex, Inc. infringes two of its patents. Although several complaints have...more

25 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide