January 12, 2018
Authored and Edited by Paula E. Miller; Nathan I. North; Li Feng, Ph.D.; William B. Raich, Ph.D.
In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the CAFC affirmed the district court’s interpretation of the “information exchange” provision of BPCIA and partially reversed the district court’s decision regarding the “notice provision,” holding that the 180-day notice of commercial marketing provision of BPCIA is ineffective unless it is provided after a biosimilar applicant receives FDA licensure. This was the Federal Circuit’s first real opportunity to interpret provisions of BPCIA. Further discussion of the decision can be found on Finnegan’s Federal Circuit IP Blog and Finnegan’s IP Updates.
This decision was vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded by SCOTUS in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1664 (2017). The Court held that the notice of commercial marketing could be provided by the applicant either before or after receiving FDA approval. The Court did affirm the “information exchange” requirement is not enforceable by injunction, but for different reasons than the CAFC. The Court remanded for a determination as to whether an injunction is available under state law. Further discussion of the decision can be found on Finnegan’s IP Updates.
In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 877 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the CAFC, on remand from SCOTUS, held that Sandoz had not waived its preemption defense and that Amgen’s state law claims were preempted by BPCIA with regard to Sandoz’s aBLA for filgrastim. The court held that the defense was not waived because it was a matter of public concern and Sandoz had preserved the defense in its answer. The court also held that Amgen’s state law claims were preempted under field preemption and conflict preemption. Further discussion of the decision can be found on Finnegan’s Federal Circuit IP Blog and Finnegan’s IP Updates.
abbreviated biologic license application (aBLA), Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), injunction, Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
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.