News & Analysis as of

Preliminary Injunctions Pharmaceutical Patents FDA Approval

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending May 9, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Ingenico Inc., et al. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No. 2023-1367 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) May 7, 2025). Opinion by Hughes, joined by Dyk and Prost. Ingenico filed a declaratory judgment action against IOENGINE relating to two patents owned...more

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

Patent Prosecution Tool Kit: Implications of the BPCIA on the IP Strategies of Brand Companies and Biosimilar Developers

The enactment of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) in 2010 established for the first time ever in the US an abbreviated pathway for obtaining FDA approval of a new biological product that is deemed...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Biosimilars in 2020: What’s Ahead

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

Goodwin

Hospira Opposes Amgen’s PI Motion in Amgen v. Hospira

Goodwin on

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

Goodwin

Update On Amgen’s PI Motion In Amgen v. Hospira

Goodwin on

Yesterday, in Amgen v. Hospira, Amgen filed a redacted copy of Amgen’s amended opening brief in support of its motion for preliminary injunction (PI). As we previously reported, Amgen filed a revised brief because the Supreme...more

Jones Day

Supreme Court: Biosimilar Applicants May Provide Commercial Marketing Notice Before FDA Approval

Jones Day on

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

Mintz - Health Care Viewpoints

SCOTUS Ruling Gives a Boost to Biosimilars; FDA Continues to Advance Products Through AdComs

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Amgen v. Sandoz: The Supreme Court’s First Biosimilars Ruling

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

Jackson Walker

SCOTUS Simplifies Market Entry Process for Biosimilar Products

Jackson Walker on

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

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

The Patent Dance Is Optional

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Supreme Court Decision Largely Favors Biosimilar Applicants

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

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

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

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

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

"Don't Stop the Dance"[*] -- The Dissents-in-Part from Amgen v. Sandoz

As we have been reporting this week, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. -- a case of first impression relating to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA") for...more

16 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