Biosimilar Pre-Marketing Notice Always Required

15 December 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

Judge Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has issued another decision interpreting the complicated provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Action (BPCIA), ruling that the statute requires a biosimilar applicant to give 180 days’ pre-marketing notice after FDA approval even if it has engaged in the BPCIA’s patent dance. The decision came in an order granting Amgen’s motion for a preliminary injunction in Amgen, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. where the biosimilar at issue relates to Amgen’s Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) product. 

The Neulasta® Biosimilar Dispute

Apotex has filed a Biologic License Application (BLA) seeking FDA approval to market a biosimilar version of Amgen’s Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) product. The parties have exchanged information and statements under the “patent dance” provisions of the BPCIA, and, pursuant to those provisions, Amgen filed suit alleging that Apotex’s biosimilar product will infringe two of its patents.

Read more about the biosimilar patent dance in these articles.

The Pre-Marketing Notice Requirement

Amgen sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Apotex from marketing its biosimilar product “until 180 days after it notifies Amgen of approval by the [FDA].” Although the Federal Circuit held in Amgen v. Sandoz that the pre-marketing notice of 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(8)(A) cannot be given until the biosimilar is approved, Sandoz took the position that pre-marketing notice is entirely optional when the biosimilar applicant has provided information under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2) and engaged in the patent dance, as it has in this case.

The parties stipulated to most elements required for a preliminary injunction, such that the only issue before the court was the legal one: whether the commercial marketing notice and 180 day period in  § 262(l)(8)(A) is mandatory in all cases.

The biosimilar pre-marketing notice portion of the BPCIA states:

The subsection (k) applicant shall provide notice to the reference product sponsor not later than 180 days before the date of the first commercial marketing of the biological product licensed under subsection (k).

While the term “shall” typically denotes a mandatory requirement, the Federal Circuit held in Amgen v. Sandoz that the term “shall” as used in § 262(l)(2) did not require a biosimilar applicant to share its biosimilar application with the reference product sponsor, at least in part because the statute sets forth detailed consequences of non-compliance. On the other hand, in the same decision, the Federal Circuit held that the pre-marketing notice provision of § 262(l)(8)(A) is a “standalone notice provision,” in which the term “shall” is mandatory.

Read more about the decision in Amgen v. Sandoz in this article.

Although in Amgen v. Sandoz the biosimilar applicant had “completely fail[ed] to provide its [biosimilar application] and the required manufacturing information” under § 262(l)(2), the court here found nothing in the statute or the Amgen v. Sandoz decision that limited the pre-marketing notice provision of § 262(l)(8)(A) to situations where § 262(l)(2) was not followed:

The [BPCIA] simply does not give the subsection (k) applicant the power to nullify the RPS’ statutory right to 180 days notice of approval prior to marketing based on whether or not the subsection (k) applicant complies with § 262(l)(2).

Injunction Will Be Felt Upon Approval

As noted in the court’s order, Apotex’s product is not yet approved by the FDA. Thus, the preliminary injunction itself does not keep Apotex’s product off the market now, but will “require Apotex to notify Amgen when and if it receives FDA approval and will prohibit Apotex from marketing the approved product for 180 days after the notice is provided.”

If Apotex appeals this decision, it will be interesting to see whether the Federal Circuit stands by its decision in Amgen v. Sandoz, or tries to wrestle anew with the complex provisions of the BPCIA.

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

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI