California Employment News: Pay Transparency Coming to California
Employment Law Now VI-121 - Top 5 Fall Things You Need To Know
California's New COVID-19 Sick Leave Mandate: What Employers Need to Know
FLSA and Wage and Hour Issues for Restaurants
Practical Training for Project Managers & Supervisors Two-Part Webinar Series: Part Two
NGE OnDemand: The Importance of Timely Reporting Occurrences, Claims and Suits to Insurers with Paul Walker-Bright
#WorkforceWednesday: DOL Electronic Notices Guidance, EEO-1 Reporting Delayed, CA COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave - Employment Law This Week®
Advancing Agriculture: Security Interests and Article 9 Challenges (Part 2)
#WorkforceWednesday: Sick Leave in New York, California Law Update, and Oregon’s Workplace Fairness Act Takes Effect
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
COBRA: Avoid Getting Snakebit! (Notice Update, Deadline Update, Litigation Update)
Cutting Costs With Employee Benefit Plans (Part 5 of 5) – Implementation
Butler's Thursday Tips #7 | Civil Remedy Notices
The Blunt Truth About Testing Employees For Marijuana In California (part one)
#BigIdeas2020: Facial Recognition Technology and Employer Compliance - Employment Law This Week® - Trending News
CF on Cyber: Key Takeaways from the California AG’s Proposed CCPA Regulations
Contractual Notice Requirements: Do You Really Need Them?
Report: Chinese Military Now Hacking American Businesses
Safeguards against Data Security Breaches (Part One)
FTC Hits Path with $800k Fine, Continues to Make Mobile Privacy a Priority
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 December 14, the Federal Circuit issued a decision that further clarifies the ground rules for disclosures of product information by manufacturers of biosimilar pharmaceutical products. In particular, the Federal Circuit...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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court rendered its first interpretations of the biosimilar patent dispute resolution procedures of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), ruling largely in favor of Sandoz on both issues...more
On April 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the much-anticipated Amgen v. Sandoz case, representing the first time the Court has had to grapple with the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act...more
As we predicted in a previous post, FDA approved a new biosimilar product, Sandoz’s Erelzi (etanercept-szzs), which is a biosimilar to Amgen’s Enbrel (etanercept), on August 30th. FDA’s decision comes shortly after its...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In other Supreme Court news from Monday, June 20, 2016, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs in the Sandoz v. Amgen (No. 15-1039) and Amgen v. Sandoz (No. 15-1195) appeals to express the views of the United...more
Amgen has decided not to seek Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit’s Amgen v. Sandoz decision, as the January 14, 2016 deadline to file has now passed without Amgen petitioning for certiorari. Amgen v. Sandoz is...more
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
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
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