Will The Avastin Biosimilar Patent Dance Go On?

07 March 2017 PharmaPatents Blog
Authors: Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

Judge Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has dismissed Genentech’s complaint against Amgen for allegedly failing to comply with the the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), but the Avastin biosimilar patent dance still may go on. Judge Sleet dismissed the complaint without prejudice and gave Genentech 45 days to amend its complaint. Perhaps more importantly, the clock still may be running against Genentech to make the next move in the patent dance.

Genentech’s Patent Dance Complaint

As explained in this article, this case arose from Amgen’s November 2016 aBLA for a biosimilar version of Genentech’s Avastin® (bevacizumab) product, which Genentech describes as it “best-selling cancer drug.” However, Genentech’s complaint was not for patent infringement, but rather alleged that Amgen failed to comply with the information exchange requirements of the “patent dance” provisions of the BPCIA. Although Amgen provided a copy of its aBLA to Genentech in accordance with 42 USC § 262(l)(2)(A), Genentech alleged that Amgen failed to provide additional required information, such as informaton regarding its manufacturing process.

Amgen’s Right To Sit This One Out

In a letter to the court dated February 27, 2017, Amgen argued that Genentech’s complaint should be dismissed as “procedurally improper” under the Federal Circuit decision in Amgen v. Sandoz. According to Amgen:

[That case] squarely holds that the sole and exclusive remedy for any alleged non-compliance with 42 U.S.C. 262(/)(2)(A) is a patent infringement action.

As explain in this article, the Federal Circuit ruled in Amgen v. Sandoz that if a biosimilar applicant fails to follow the “patent dance” procedures of 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2)(A), the only “remedy” available to the reference product sponsor is to pursue a patent infringement claim under 42 USC § 262(l)(9)(C) and 35 U.S.C § 271(e)(2)(C)(ii).

(Amgen acknowledged that it has asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, but noted that the decision “remains controlling authority here.”)

Since Genentech’s complaint did not assert any claims of patent infringement, Amgen argued that it was precluded under Amgen v. Sandoz.

Must Genentech Keep Dancing By Itself?

Genentech filed a responsive letter to the court dated February 28, 2017, arguing that Amgen v. Sandoz only applies when a biosimilar applicant opts out of the patent dance altogether. According to Genentech, because Amgen opted into the patent dance by providing a copy of its aBLA to Genentech, the court should have the authority to resolve this dispute so the patent dance can go on.

Genentech also argued that biosimilar applicants who opt into the patent dance benefit considerably because it imposes certain limitations on “how and when the innovator [reference product sponsor] can exercise its patent rights.” That also means that the reference product sponsor is at a disadvantage when the biosimilar applicant withholds information needed to assess patent infringement. For example, Genentech argues that it will be forced “either to produce a list of potentially infringed patents under § 262(l)(3)(A), without the full production of materials or expert assistance that should have informed that list, or sue Amgen for infringement and wait and see whether that lawsuit was proper at some later time.”

Is This Dance Over? 

Judge Sleet dismissed Genentech’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice, and gave Genentech the opportunity to filed an amended complaint within 45 days (i.e., April 15). However, according to its February 28 letter, Genentech faces a March 24, 2017 deadline for serving Amgen with its list of potentially infringed patents under § 262(l)(3)(A). It will be interesting to see whether Genentech continues on with the patent dance or opts out itself by filing a declaratory judgment action under 42 USC § 262(l)(9)(C) and 35 U.S.C § 271(e)(2)(C)(ii).

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