Supreme Court Will Judge Biosimilar Patent Dance

16 January 2017 PharmaPatents Blog
Authors: Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review some of the patent dispute resolution provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The Court granted certiorari in the dispute between Amgen and Sandoz, where the Federal Circuit decided that the biosimilar patent dance provisions are optional, but pre-marketing notice always is required.

Do Biosimilar Applicants Have To Join In The Patent Dance?

Amgen’s March 21, 2016 conditional-cross petition for certiorari asked the Court to decide the following issue:

Is an Applicant required by 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2)(A) to provide the Sponsor with a copy of its biologics license application and related manufacturing information, which the statute says the Applicant “shall provide,” and, where an Applicant fails to provide that required information, is the Sponsor’s sole recourse to commence a declaratory-judgment action under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(9)(C) and/or a patent-infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(ii)?

Do Biosimilar Applicants Have To Wait For Approval To Give Pre-Marketing Notice?

Sandoz’s February 16, 2016 petition for certiorari asked the Court to decide the following issue:

Whether notice of commercial marketing given before FDA approval can be effective and whether, in any event, treating Section 262(l)(8)(A) as a standalone requirement and creating an injunctive remedy that delays all biosimilars by 180 days after approval is improper.

Will The Court Follow The Solicitor General’s Lead Or Be Swayed By Amici?

As reported in this article, the Solicitor General of the United States filed an amicus brief that sided with Sandoz on both issues. In particular, the Solicitor General thinks the Federal Circuit correctly held that the information exchange provisions of 42 USC § 262(l)(2)(A) are optional, but does not agree that the pre-marketing notice required by 21 USC § 262(l)(8)(A) cannot be given until the biosimilar product has been approved by the FDA.

The Court has granted Apotex’s motion to file an amicus brief, and it is likely that other stakeholders on both sides of the issues will want to make their views known to the Court.

Read More About The Amgen/Sandoz Neupogen®/Zarxio® Biosimilar Dispute

These articles discuss previous proceedings in Amgen v. Sandoz and explain the biosimilar patent dance issues in more detail:

If the Court follows its usual schedule, the case will be argued this spring and a decision will be rendered by the end of the Court’s current term in June.

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.