Blog August 27, 2015
Injunction Denied, Sandoz Clear to Launch
- Person title
This morning, a divided Federal Circuit denied Amgen's motion for a temporary injunction preventing Sandoz from marketing ZARXIO, its biosimilar version of Amgen's NEUPOGEN filgrastim product. With no explanation, the Court refused Amgen's request for a temporary injunction while the Federal Circuit considers both parties' requests for an en banc rehearing of its July 21, 2015 ruling regarding the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). In this case of first impression, the Federal Circuit previously held (1) the "patent dance" provision of section (l)(2)(A) was not mandatory for subsection (k) applicants and (2) biosimilar applicants may only give effective notice of intent to commercially market after the FDA has licensed the biosimilar product. Amgen appealed the panel's decision that the patent dance is optional, whereas Sandoz appealed the ruling concerning the notice period.
Regarding Amgen's most recent request for a temporary injunction, Judge Lourie and Judge Chen joined in rejecting Amgen's request, while Judge Newman would have granted the injunction. Notably, this is the same majority that ruled against Amgen last month in holding that the patent dance provisions of the BPCIA are optional.
This decision, which comes as the injunction against Sandoz's marketing of ZARXIO is set to expire today, clears the way for Sandoz to begin marketing the first biosimilar approved under the BPCIA as early as tomorrow. It remains to be seen whether Sandoz will begin marketing and launch ZARXIO in light of the pending en banc petitions and Amgen's pending lawsuit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,162,427, which claims a method of using filgrastim.
We will continue to monitor these events and provide updates.
Authors: Michael Amon, Tasha Francis
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 July 22, 2015
Amgen v. Sandoz: Federal Circuit Weighs In on the BPCIA Riddle
Blog June 18, 2015
Hot Topics Related to Biosimilars and the BPCIA
Blog February 9, 2015
The Dangers of Having Your Expert Not Devote Sufficient Time to Your Case
Blog December 4, 2023
Amended FRE 702 on Expert Testimony Effective December 1, 2023
Blog December 1, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: November 2023
Blog November 27, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q3 2023
Blog November 15, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog November 9, 2023
Legal Alert: FTC Challenges More Than 100 Patents as Improperly Listed in Orange Book
Blog November 3, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Allergan Patents Invalid for Lack of Written Description and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Labs
Blog October 31, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog October 30, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Non-Orange Book-Listed Patents Subject to the Same Pleading Standard as Listed Patents in ANDA Infringement Suit
Blog October 11, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2023
Blog September 25, 2023
Federal Circuit Evaluates Enablement for Antibody Claims for the First Time Since Amgen v. Sanofi in Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.