Remicade Biosimilar Closer To Approval, But Patent Dance Goes On

11 February 2016 PharmaPatents Blog

Celltrion’s biosimilar version of Janssen’s Remicade® (infliximab) product cleared a significant regulatory hurdle on February 9, 2016, when the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 21-3 in favor of approval. While the FDA is not bound by the Advisory Committee’s decision, it is expected to follow the recommendation and approve the product. However, other requirements of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) and Janssen’s patents may keep Celltrion’s product off the market for a while longer.

Pending BPCIA Litigation

As summarized in this article, after Celltrion filed its biosimilar application, Janssen sued Celltrion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging violations of the BPCIA and infringement of six patents. One of the BPCIA claims alleged that Celltrion’s “notice of commercial marketing” was premature and ineffective under 42 USC § 262(l)(8) since it was given before the biosimilar product was approved by the FDA.

In Amgen v. Sandoz the Federal Circuit determined that § 262(l)(8) is a “standalone” provision, and that the pre-marketing notice required by that provision cannot be given until the FDA has approved the biosimilar product. However, in Amgen v. Apotex, which is on appeal at the Federal Circuit, Apotex has argued that § 262(l)(8) does not apply when the biosimilar applicant has participated in the patent dance provisions of the BPCIA.

Depending on whether § 262(l)(8) is found to be a true “standalone” provision or to apply only if there are unasserted patents to be litigated, if and when the FDA approves Celltrion’s biosimilar product, Celltrion may have to give Janssen 180 days’ notice before it can market its product.

The Patent Claims

As noted above, Janssen originally asserted six patents against Celltrion. It has since dismissed its claim relating to one patent and sought to stay its claim regarding another patent that is undergoing reexamination. Thus, at least four patents remain in dispute. Janssen may seek a preliminary injunction to prevent Celltrion from entering the market until this patent litigation is resolved, and/or Celltrion may decide against a launch at risk.

Thus, even after the regulatory and pre-marketing notice hurdles of the BPCIA are cleared, Janssen’s patents may keep Celltrion’s biosimilar product off the market.

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

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ