No Rehearing of Biosimilar Patent Dance Decision

19 October 2015 PharmaPatents Blog
Authors: Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

The Federal Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing en banc filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., which was the court’s first decision interpreting the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).  Perhaps the court thought that because both parties sought rehearing they must have gotten it right, but Amgen and Sandoz took issue with different aspects of the panel decision.

The Panel Decision Interpreting the BPCIA

As summarized in this article, the panel decision Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. interpreted several aspects of the BPCIA related to patent dispute resolution and market entry. In the portion of the decision Amgen disagreed with, the panel held that a biosimilar applicant does not have to share its biosimilar application with the reference product sponsor or follow the patent dispute resolution procedures set forth in the BPCIA. In the portion of the decision Sandoz disagreed with, the panel held that a biosimilar applicant must give 180 days’ pre-marketing notice to the reference product sponsor and cannot do so until after the FDA has “licensed” (approved) the biosimilar product.

The Future of The Biosimilar Patent Dance

The full court’s decision to deny rehearing was made despite amicus briefs filed by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Abbvie Inc. and Janssen Biotech, Inc., who each urged that the patent dispute resolution procedures of the BPCIA should be mandatory. (You can read more about the amicus arguments here.) While both Amgen and Sandoz may pursue petitions for certiorari at the Supreme Court, it is not clear that the Court will want to get involved this early in the statute’s provenance.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.