October 19, 2015
On October 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit declined to rehear en banc the July 21, 2015, decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.1 Accordingly, the first Federal Circuit decision interpreting certain provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) remains undisturbed.
In July, Judge Lourie wrote the decision for a split panel that also included Judges Newman and Chen. The decision resolved two main issues of first impression related to the BPCIA: (1) whether a biosimilar applicant must provide the reference product sponsor with a copy of its application to the FDA for licensure of its biosimilar product (aBLA), and (2) whether the biosimilar applicant must wait until it receives FDA approval before providing the reference product sponsor with its 180-day notice of commercial marketing.
With regard to the first issue, Judges Lourie and Chen agreed that the aBLA disclosure provision set forth in §262(l)(2) of the BPCIA is optional.2 The decision rejected Amgen’s argument that use of the word “shall” in § 262(l)(2) indicated that disclosure of the aBLA was mandatory, finding instead that when read in context with other provisions of the BPCIA, the aBLA disclosure provision was optional.3 Judge Newman dissented.
With regard to the second issue, Judges Lourie and Newman agreed that a biosimilar applicant could not provide its 180-day notice of commercial marketing until after the FDA approves the biosimilar application, rejecting Sandoz’s argument to the contrary. Judge Lourie explained that before FDA approval, the therapeutic uses and manufacturing processes of a potential biosimilar are not fixed, and thus a biosimilar applicant cannot give effective notice until after the FDA has granted approved.4,5 Judge Chen dissented.
Having each lost on one issue, both Amgen and Sandoz filed petitions for rehearing. Based on the fractured nature of the panel decision, many watching the case anticipated en banc review. By denying the petitions, the court’s July decision remains intact. Either side may appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court, and given the significant implications stemming from the Federal Circuit’s decision, petitions seeking certiorari can be expected.
Endnotes
1Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
2Id. at 1355-56.
3Id.
4Id. at 1357.
5Id. at 1358-59.
Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Webinar
Building a Strong ADC Patent Portfolio – From Prosecution and Litigation Perspectives
May 15, 2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.