Nowik Sylwia / Shutterstock.com
On July 21 the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Amgen v Sandoz that biosimilar applicants can opt out of the ‘patent dance’. Courtenay Brinckerhoff of Foley & Lardner considers the decision’s implications for the biosimilars framework and highlights the questions that remain unanswered.
When Congress enacted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) in 2009 to create an abbreviated pathway for biosimilar product approval, it included complicated provisions for resolving patent infringement disputes. In March this year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first biosimilar product, and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit then had to decide whether those provisions are mandatory or optional.
On July 21, in Amgen v Sandoz, the federal circuit held that the provisions are optional, although a biosimilar applicant that opts out may be subject to an immediate patent infringement suit. The court also held that biosimilar applicants must give 180 days prior notice of commercial marketing, and cannot do so until the biosimilar product has been approved by the FDA.
The Neupogen biosimilar dispute
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at email@example.com
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
Amgen v Sandoz, biosimilar, Foley & Lardner, BPCIA, FDA, DNA, RPS,