Blog May 19, 2023
Legal Alert: Amgen v. Sanofi
A pending patent-infringement case, litigated under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"), will present several new questions related to how the BPCIA will interact with patents on biosimilar manufacturing—not just with patents covering the biosimilars themselves. The most recent dispute in this case involves potential remedies.
Janssen Biotech sells the biologic infliximab under its brand name Remicade®—a monoclonal antibody used to treat Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and other inflammatory diseases. In mid-2014, Celltrion and Hospira sought (and later obtained) FDA approval for Inflectra®—a biosimilar of infliximab.
In early 2015, Janssen sued Celltrion and Hospira ("Defendants") for patent infringement under the BPCIA, also alleging that the Defendants failed to comply with various provisions of the BPCIA's "patent dance." The patent-in-suit does not cover infliximab, but rather the patent claims a composition "suitable for producing . . . cell culture media"—a media used to manufacture infliximab.
Defendants use the allegedly infringing media to make Inflectra® in South Korea. Defendants originally sourced their media from both the United States and Singapore, but now obtain it only from Singapore. Because U.S. patent laws generally do not apply overseas, Janssen's infringement allegations center on the Defendants' prior U.S. purchases of the cell culture media. Last year, the FDA approved Inflectra®, and Defendants launched at-risk on November 21, 2016.
Recently, the Court ordered briefing on the "appropriate measure of damages, and the factual and legal issues concerning the entitlement to a permanent injunction" if Defendants are found to infringe Janssen's patent. Janssen seeks (1) a permanent injunction to prohibit Defendants from selling Inflectra® in the United States, and (2) lost profits for lost sales of Remicade®.
(Interestingly, according to Janssen's complaint, the parties appeared to dispute when Janssen was required to file suit to avoid the lost-profit bar of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(6)(B). Janssen filed within the time that Defendants allegedly argued, thereby sidestepping, for now, a dispute over the interpretation and applicability of the BPCIA's lost-profits bar.)
For the remedies Janssen seeks, the primary dispute is about the link between the patented cell culture media and the off-patent infliximab. Generally, a patentee seeking an injunction must show a "nexus" between the act of infringement and the irreparable harm. And a patentee seeking lost profits must show that the defendant's infringement was the "but-for" cause of the patentee's lost sales.
Here, Janssen admits both that its patent does not cover infliximab, and that Defendants' sourcing of cell culture media from Singapore and use in South Korea does not infringe its patent. Instead, Janssen argues that, by previously sourcing some of the media in the United States, the "Defendants' infringement is a crucial step in the production of their infliximab biosimilar," thereby satisfying the "nexus" requirement for an injunction. Defendants respond that Janssen has failed to show that the patented cell culture media "drives consumer demand" for Remicade® sufficient to show irreparable harm.
On its lost-profits claim, Janssen argues that it has sufficient evidence that Defendants' infringement was the "but-for" cause of Janssen's lost sales, such that a jury could rule in their favor. Defendants respond that, under Federal Circuit law, the extraterritorial use of the cell culture media to manufacture Inflectra® severs the causal chain, as a matter of law, necessary for Janssen to claim lost profits of Remicade®.
It will be interesting to see how parties litigate patents related to biosimilar manufacturing—rather than patents on biosimilars themselves—under the BPCIA scheme, and whether these two types of patents will be treated differently under the BPCIA. The issue over the appropriate remedies will likely be resolved in the coming weeks. A jury trial is set for February 13, 2017.
 Complaint, Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., No. 15-cv-10698 (D. Mass. Mar. 6, 2015).
 U.S. Patent No. 7,598,083.
 Memorandum of Law Regarding Plaintiff's Inability to Obtain a Permanent Injunction or Lost Profits Damages, Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., No. 15-cv-10698 (D. Mass. Jan. 25, 2017), ECF No. 414; see also Rebuttal Memorandum of Law Regarding Plaintiff's Inability to Obtain a Permanent Injunction or Lost Profits Damages, Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., No. 15-cv-10698 (D. Mass. Jan. 31, 2017), ECF No. 441.
 See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
 Plaintiffs' Memorandum Concerning the Appropriate Measure of Damages and the Propriety of Injunctive Relief, Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., No. 15-cv-10698 (D. Mass. Jan. 25, 2017), ECF No. 412; see also Plaintiffs' Response Memorandum on the Appropriate Measure of Damages and the Propriety of Injunctive Relief, Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., No. 15-cv-10698 (D. Mass. Jan. 31, 2017), ECF No. 445.
 Pfizer Announces the U.S. Availability of Biosimilar INFLECTRA® (infliximab-dyyb), Pfizer (Oct. 17, 2016), http://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer_announces_the_u_s_availability_of_biosimilar_inflectra_infliximab_dyyb; Jessica Merrill, Pfizer Will Support Inflectra Launch with Dedicated Sales Force, Scrip (Nov. 14, 2016), https://scrip.pharmamedtechbi.com/SC097660/Pfizer-Will-Support-Inflectra-Launch-With-Dedicated-Sales-Force.
 Order, Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Celltrion Healthcare Co., No. 15-cv-10698 (D. Mass. Jan. 19, 2017), ECF No. 387.
 E,g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
 E.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods., 185 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
 See Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor, 711 F.3d 1348, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Authors: Brian Apel, Tasha Francis, Ph.D.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog May 19, 2023
Legal Alert: Amgen v. Sanofi
Blog May 16, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog May 15, 2023
Legal Alert: Minimizing Patent TRO and PI Risk in Europe
Blog May 12, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog April 18, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Blog April 10, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Blog March 2, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: February 2023
Blog February 10, 2023
President Biden Signs "Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022" Into Law
Blog February 10, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Blog February 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023