直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Amgen Stops Sales of Zarxio®, For Now

May 6, 2015

On May 5, 2015, the Federal Circuit granted Amgen a temporary reprieve in its fight with Sandoz regarding whether Sandoz may sell Zarxio®, its FDA-approved biosimilar to Amgen’s Neupogen® product, before completion of the pre-litigation procedures outlined in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). In Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 2015-1499 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2015), the Federal Circuit granted Amgen’s motion for a temporary injunction pending a June 3, 2015, hearing on Amgen’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit’s temporary injunction is “effective immediately,” and the parties have 14 days to brief the court on the appropriate amount of the bond Amgen will need to post. For Amgen, the Federal Circuit’s decision comes just in time, as Sandoz had indicated it would launch Zarxio® on or around May 11, 2015. Amgen’s “Emergency Motion” for an injunction pending appeal, Sandoz’s opposition, and Amgen’s reply, can be found below:

  • Amgen’s “Emergency Motion” for an injunction pending appeal 
  • Sandoz’s opposition 
  • Amgen’s reply 

 

Tags

Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

Related Industries

生命科學

製藥

生物技術

生物藥品

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.

Related Insights

Articles

Prosecution History Estoppel: Navigating Limits on Equivalents in Patent Litigation

March/April 2026

Articles

The UPC - Only Three Years Old and Already Leading

The UPC - Only Three Years Old and Already Leading

March 18, 2026

European IP Blog

UPC’s Court of Appeal Overturns First Instance Decision in Amgen v. Sanofi and Regeneron

7 January 2026

Articles

Trending at the PTAB: The Policies That Are Redefining IPR

January 6, 2026

Articles

Legal Landscapes: Germany – Patent Litigation

November 2025

At the PTAB Blog

In Amazon v. Audio Pod, Acting Director Hits Pause on Young Patent When Older Patents Dominate the Playlist

October 1, 2025

At the PTAB Blog

Acting Director Gives Guidance on How to Argue “Settled Expectations” Exist for Young Patents

August 29, 2025

Articles

Unpacking the PTAB’s Patent Age Denial Doctrine Data

August 29, 2025

Articles

Navigating the Future: Ensuring Patentability for AI-Assisted Innovations in the Pharmaceutical and Chemical Space

July/August 2025

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP