spacer
home > ebr > summer 2018 > the patent dance
PUBLICATIONS
European Biopharmaceutical Review

The Patent Dance

The state of biosimilars in the US has never been hotter; 2017 was the most active year to date for biosimilar drug manufacturers since the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) was enacted by Congress. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the US and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have indelibly altered the landscape of biosimilar litigation. Now, biosimilar applicants can eliminate the nearly eight-month information exchange process and/or collapse the two litigation phases into one single action − effectively expediting the litigation and potentially accelerating market entry.

Rounds of Disclosure

Enacted in 2010, the BPCIA created an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilars (1). The BPCIA facilitates litigation during the period preceding FDA approval of the biosimilar so that the parties may attempt to resolve their patent disputes prior to commercial marketing (2). However, several key differences exist. Besides the absence of an Orange Book for patents covering biological products, the most notable distinction between the BPCIA and Hatch-Waxman schemes is how patent litigation can impact the approval and launch of a follow-on biologic. As set forth in 42 USC § 262 (l), a ‘patent dance’ is contemplated, consisting of several ‘rounds’ of disclosure and information exchange.

The first round of this dance starts rapidly. Within 20 days of the FDA’s acceptance of an Abbreviated Biologics License Application (aBLA), the BPCIA contemplates that a biosimilar applicant provides the reference product sponsor confidential access to its full aBLA application (2). Furthermore, the biosimilar applicant can provide the reference product sponsor detailed information concerning the biosimilar product’s manufacturing process (2). Sixty days after this initial exchange, the reference product sponsor must provide the biosimilar applicant with a list of unexpired patents for which a claim of infringement could reasonably be made, as well as any licensing offers (2). The biosimilar applicant then has another 60 days to provide detailed invalidity, unenforceability, and/or noninfringement contentions for each of the asserted patents (2). What follows next is an additional series of responses, culminating over an eight-month period, with the innovator bringing suit in a US federal court. However, if the biosimilar applicant fails to engage in this disclosure process, the reference product sponsor may file an immediate declaratory judgment action on any of those unexpired patents that could be reasonably asserted.

Read full article from PDF >>

Rate this article You must be a member of the site to make a vote.  
Average rating:
0
     

There are no comments in regards to this article.

spacer
Sanya Sukduang is a partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. He has a dynamic practice litigating matters concerning abbreviated new drug application challenges for brand drug manufacturers, diagnostic methods, biological products, and medical devices. Sanya has been the recipient of various awards and nominations, including Best Lawyers Under 40 by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.

Thomas J Sullivan is an associate at Finnegan. His practice focuses on complex patent litigation related to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields. He is actively involved in Hatch-Waxman litigation proceedings at the district court level and in appeals to the Federal Circuit.
spacer
Sanya Sukduang
spacer
spacer
spacer
Thomas J Sullivan
spacer
spacer
Print this page
Send to a friend
Privacy statement
News and Press Releases

Wickham Laboratories Ltd to Exhibit at Pharmig 2018

This year’s event will bring together an array of industry experts and regulators to discuss the latest research and findings within the pharmaceutical microbiology industry.
More info >>

White Papers

Conveying Medical Guidance in Clinical Trials – A Survey

Europital Medical Consultancy

With the incremental demand for proactive safety surveillance throughout the conduct of clinical trials, the role of Medical Management is at the fore in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the participants. The complex responsibilities of a Medical Monitor (MM) starts from the design and development phase, through to study close out. Understanding the principle behind the protocol and the prospective medical solution the study would deliver forms the bloodline for the MM role. Often, the MM is the face of contact for both the site personnel and the study team members with regard to medical, safety and scientific issues within the project. When it comes to medical guidance, the communication channel used to deliver solutions contributes to a large extent in effectively managing decisive situations. Our previous study on acquiring medical guidance from an operations team perspective revealed that e-mails were the most used communication method (see the article, 'Talking Points', in ICT November 2014). In our efforts to further strengthen the mode of medical guidance delivery, we designed a survey to study the existing trend and constraints in this communication chain management, as outlined here.
More info >>

 
Industry Events

CPhI & P-MEC India 2018

12-14 December 2018, India Expo Mart, New Delhi, India

CPhI & P-MEC India (December 12-14, 2018) – organised by UBM (part of Informa PLC) – announces that the 12th edition of Asia’s largest Pharma exhibition is moving to the India Expo Mart, New Delhi. The new venue will see the exhibition now hosted in a single venue, bringing it closer to the Indian regulatory and legislative capital. New Delhi is also the country’s main international transport hub and will encourage an increased international attendance. In total, more than 50,000 people from 122 countries are expected, along with nearly 1,500 exhibitors.
More info >>

 

 

©2000-2011 Samedan Ltd.
Add to favourites

Print this page

Send to a friend
Privacy statement