Decisions in the Amgen v. Sandoz case involving Sandoz’s biosimilar versions of Amgen’s Neupogen® and Neulasta® drugs have provided significant guidance to biosimilar litigants over the years. ...more
Many reference product sponsors (“RPSs”) of biologic products have sought extensive patent protection for their manufacturing processes, and RPSs commonly assert those patents against biosimilar manufacturers in Biologics...more
Courts have begun to shape the contours of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) and the progress of biosimilar litigation, but the use of declaratory judgment actions by biosimilar manufacturers...more
Since the passage of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), 2017 has been the most active year yet for drug manufacturers. Fish attorneys Tasha Francis, Jenny Shmuel, and Brianna Chamberlin addressed the...more
On December 14, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"). In Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc., 15-cv-1499 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the...more
2017 was an eventful year for biosimilars in the U.S. As the number of biosimilar filings increased, important legal and regulatory decisions changed the strategic landscape of the biosimilars market for both innovators and...more
The Federal Circuit has issued its final decision in the biosimilar patent litigation between Amgen and Sandoz over the first product to be approved under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Not...more
The Amgen v. Sandoz battle continues to make new law regarding the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), this time in a December 14th ruling from the Federal Circuit finding that “the BPCIA preempts state...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
The Federal Circuit on Thursday issued an opinion in Amgen v. Sandoz holding that that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) preempts state-law claims that are based on a biosimilar applicant’s failure to...more
The Federal Circuit today ruled decisively in favor of Sandoz in the long-running battle with Amgen over whether state law can be used to compel a biosimilar applicant to participate in the BPCIA’s “patent dance.” The panel...more
Last week the Biosimilars Council submitted an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit remand proceedings for Amgen v. Sandoz, arguing that Amgen’s state-law claims for Sandoz’s failure to comply with the patent dance’s...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
While the Supreme Court held in Amgen v. Sandoz that biosimilar applicants cannot be forced with a federal injunction to provide a copy of their biosimilar application (aBLA) and manufacturing information to the reference...more
A theme emerging in biosimilar litigation is when –and how much—discovery is available to reference product sponsors. The Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sandoz grappled with this issue in the spring, as it decided whether...more
In borrowing a page from the '80s band "Men Without Hats," on June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court brought greater certainty for both biosimilar applicants and originator companies. In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme...more
Biosimilars Around the World - Last month’s Supreme Court ruling in Sandoz v. Amgen brought greater certainty to both biosimilar applicants and originators in the United States. The July 2017 issue of Sterne Kessler’s...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
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
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified what happens when biosimilar applicants do not follow the regulatory framework for disputes with reference product sponsors — a process known as the “patent dance.” Since...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 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