The Federal Circuit considered its 35 U.S.C. § 112 enablement case law and found that “the enablement inquiry for claims that include functional requirements”—in this case, claims to antibodies defined by their function—“can be particularly focused on the breadth of those requirements, especially where predictability and guidance fall short.” Dkt. 132 at 10. In Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, et al., 20-1074 (Fed. Cir.), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of non-enablement for claims asserted by Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing, Ltd., and Amgen USA, Inc. (collectively, “Amgen”).
Biologics BlogVisit the Full Blog
Biologics Blog is a source of insights, information and analysis related to biologics, including the legal developments, trends and changing regulation that impact the biotechnology industry. Patterson Belknap represents biotechnology, pharmaceutical and healthcare companies in a broad range of patent litigation matters, including patent infringement cases, PTO trial proceedings, patent licensing and other contractual disputes. Our team includes highly experienced trial attorneys with extensive technical knowledge, many of whom have advanced scientific degrees and industry experience in fields such as molecular biology, biochemistry, chemistry, statistics and nuclear engineering.
The Federal Circuit has spoken. In a per curiam opinion, it denied Valeant’s petition for rehearing by the panel and rehearing en banc.
Last week, Mylan filed a brief in opposition to Valeant’s petition for rehearing en banc in Valeant Pharms. N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 2019-2402. In November, a Federal Circuit panel held that venue in Hatch-Waxman cases brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) is proper “only in districts where actions related to the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (‘ANDA’) occur, not in all locations where future distribution of the generic products specified in the ANDA is contemplated.” Valeant contends that rehearing is necessary because the panel’s decision conflicts with precedent regarding “what the act of infringement is” and “where the act of infringement occurs” under Section 271(e)(2) of the Patent Act. By contrast, Mylan contends that the petition for rehearing should be denied because the “panel correctly applied black-letter rules of statutory interpretation” in reaching its decision, and the precedents identified by Valeant are derived from “far-afield cases and ignore the governing venue precedents.” Dkt. 89 at 7-15.
Earlier this month, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC (“Valeant”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc in Valeant Pharms. N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 2019-2402, arguing that the Federal Circuit panel’s decision limiting venue in Hatch-Waxman cases conflicts with precedent regarding “what the act of infringement is” and “where the act of infringement occurs” under Section 271(e)(2) of the Patent Act. Dkt. 75 at 15, 20. In its panel decision, the Federal Circuit held that venue in Hatch-Waxman cases brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) is proper “only in districts where actions related to the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (‘ANDA’) occur, not in all locations where future distribution of the generic products specified in the ANDA is contemplated."
For the First Time Since TC Heartland, the Federal Circuit Addresses Venue in an ANDA Case – the Holding May Also Impact BPCIA Litigation
On November 5, 2020, in Valeant Pharms. N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 2019-2402, the Federal Circuit held that venue in Hatch-Waxman cases brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) is proper “only in districts where actions related to the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (‘ANDA’) occur, not in all locations where future distribution of the generic products specified in the ANDA is contemplated.” Slip op. at 3. If the ruling stands, it will restrict venue available against domestic generic drug makers in ANDA cases, and may similarly impact venue in litigation under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”).
Federal Circuit Holds That Amendments to Biosimilar’s BLA Do Not Trigger Anew BPCIA’s Notice of Commercial Marketing Provision
Under Section 262(l)(8)(A) of the BPCIA, a biosimilar maker must provide notice to the reference product sponsor 180 days before the date of first commercial marketing of the biosimilar. While the Supreme Court has held that such notice can be provided at any time, including before a biosimilar maker’s abbreviated biologics license application (aBLA) has been approved, the statute makes clear that a biosimilar cannot be launched without a notice of commercial marketing. In Genentech, Inc. v. Immunex Rhode Island Corp., No. 2019-2155 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that supplements to a biosimilar’s aBLA do not trigger a new Section 262(l)(8)(A) requirement.
In December, in Amgen v. Hospira, 944 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019), a panel of the Federal Circuit issued the first decision applying the statutory Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) to BPCIA patent litigation. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding that Hospira’s pre-approval manufacture of batches of its biosimilar was an act of infringement of Amgen’s manufacturing patents not protected by the Safe Harbor, even though data from those batches was used to support Hospira’s BLA. The court held that the relevant Safe Harbor inquiry “is not how Hospira used each batch it manufactured, but whether each act of manufacture was for uses reasonably related to submitting information to the FDA.” Hospira has now petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the court’s holding “calls into question the continuing viability of the Safe Harbor, particularly in the context of BPCIA litigation.”
Federal Circuit Walks Back Its “Exceptional” Stance on the Doctrine of Equivalents in the Latest Amgen v. Sandoz Decision
In Amgen’s long-running dispute with biosimilar-maker Sandoz over biosimilar versions of Amgen’s filgrastim (Neupogen®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) biologics, the Federal Circuit earlier this year affirmed summary judgment of no literal infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 923 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2019). In so holding, the panel stated that “the doctrine of equivalents applies only in exceptional cases.” Amgen petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the Federal Circuit had overstated the law. According to Amgen’s petition, “[s]uch a rule is contrary to Supreme Court precedent and [Federal Circuit] precedent.” This week, the Federal Circuit course-corrected, granting Amgen’s petition without explanation for the limited purposes of removing the “exceptional” language from its prior decision.
On December 22, 2018, the United States federal government entered a partial shutdown, which now enters its 19th day. If the shutdown continues through the weekend, it will be the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history. While many federal offices and services are completely closed, agencies that impact biologics—including the FDA, the USPTO, and the Federal Judiciary—remain open in various capacities, at least for now. Nevertheless, if the shutdown continues, the biotech/pharmaceutical industry could begin to feel its effects.
Federal Circuit Clarifies Law of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Patent Term Extension and Patent Term Due to URAA Are Safe from Gilead v. Natco
In a pair of decisions on Friday, the Federal Circuit clarified the law of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). In Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC, the court held that ODP does not invalidate an otherwise valid patent term extension (PTE) granted under 35 U.S.C. § 156 (extending the term of a pharmaceutical patent to compensate for regulatory delays). And in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc., the court clarified that its holding in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014), i.e., that a later-issuing, earlier-expiring patent can invalidate an earlier-issuing, later-expiring patent for ODP, applies only to post-URAA (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) patents. Under Breckenridge, where a later patent expires earlier only because of URAA’s change in patent term, the post-URAA patent is not an ODP reference against the pre-URAA patent. The two decisions provide certainty for the biopharma industry and put an end to post-Gilead ODP challenges to pre-URAA patents and patents with PTE based on term granted by Congress.
Generics and biosimilar makers have increasingly used inter partes reviews, proceedings made possible by the America Invents Act, to challenge patents protecting innovator small-molecule drugs and biologic medicines. Senator Orrin Hatch, co-author of the Hatch-Waxman Act, has introduced an amendment that would require these manufacturers either to take advantage of the abbreviated regulatory approval pathways provided by the Hatch-Waxman Act and BPCIA and challenge innovator patents in district court or to challenge innovator patents in IPRs before the PTAB, but not both. Senator Hatch explains that while he strongly supports IPRs and the America Invents Act and that IPRs are of particular importance to the tech community to fight “patent trolls,” they are also “producing unintended consequences in the Hatch-Waxman context” and “threaten to upend the careful Hatch-Waxman balance by enabling two separate paths to attack a brand patent.” If enacted, generics and biosimilar makers that choose to take advantage of the abbreviated regulatory process will challenge innovator patents in court rather than in IPRs before the PTAB.
USPTO Adopts Amgen v. Sanofi, Excises “Newly Characterized Antigen” Test from its Written Description Guidance for Antibody Claims
Last month, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its patent examining corps clarifying its guidance concerning the written description requirement for claims drawn to antibodies. In the memorandum, the USPTO adopts the Federal Circuit’s recent decision Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit recently denied Amgen’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in Amgen, confirming that Amgen is the law for written description for antibodies.
On Oct. 5, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 2017-1480), a closely watched case involving functional antibody claims, claims that define antibodies not by their sequence or structure but by their function, such as the ability to bind a biological target. The Federal Circuit held that although written description and enablement of such claims are assessed at the priority date, post-priority-date evidence is relevant to determining the breadth of the functional claims and whether antibodies representative of the claimed genus have been disclosed. The court also held that the disclosure of a new therapeutic target does not provide a written description of the antibodies that may bind and inhibit that target, even if it is routine to make such antibodies. These holdings have important ramifications for the biotech industry.
To continue reading Irena Royzman and Andrew Cohen's article from Law360, please click here.
Following Biosimilar Trial, Jury Awards Amgen $70 Million for Pfizer’s Pre-Approval Infringement of Now-Expired EPO Patent
In one of the first Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigations to reach trial, a jury on Friday awarded Amgen $70 million in damages for Pfizer’s infringement of one of Amgen’s expired patents protecting Epogen®. The jury found that Pfizer’s subsidiary Hospira, in manufacturing its proposed biosimilar ahead of FDA approval, was not protected by the statutory safe harbor, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). This action provides an important lesson in the potential value of expired or soon-to-expire patents in BPCIA litigation. Because a biosimilar maker’s pre-approval activity may not be covered by the statutory safe harbor, patents that are expired at the time of approval may still have been infringed.
Pfizer’s proposed biosimilar of Amgen’s Epogen® and Johnson & Johnson’s Procrit® (epoetin alfa) is poised to be the first erythropoietin (EPO) biosimilar in the U.S. FDA staff recommended approval of Pfizer’s product as a biosimilar for the four indications of Epogen/Procrit. On May 25, 2017, FDA’s advisory committee agreed with that assessment, but FDA did not approve Pfizer’s product following the meeting. Instead, in a first for biosimilar products, FDA issued a complete response letter in June rejecting Pfizer’s EPO biosimilar application for a second time. Pfizer revealed that FDA did not approve the application after the advisory committee meeting due to FDA’s concerns with a manufacturing site for the EPO biosimilar. Pfizer’s product may not be approved, much less launched, this year due to outstanding manufacturing issues.
When a small pharmaceutical company discovers a new medicine, it’s not uncommon for the company – which may not itself have the resources or infrastructure to get that medicine to patients – to seek a distribution partner early in development. If the partners make a deal – say the distributor pays for the right to sell the drug (if it gets approved) – and the partners publicize the existence of the deal (but not the full details of the medicine), does the deal bar a patent filed more than one year later? In Helsinn Healthcare S.A v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. (May 1, 2017), a unanimous panel of the Federal Circuit ruled that the on-sale bar of the America Invents Act (AIA) precludes such a patent, just as the pre-AIA on-sale bar would. But, in a decision with the potential to chill deals between small bio/pharma companies and potential commercialization partners, the court left unresolved some important questions about the meaning of the AIA’s on-sale bar.
The Federal Circuit Will Hear Apotex’s Appeal from a Preliminary Injunction Under the BPCIA in Early 2016
In early 2016, the Federal Circuit will hear Apotex’s appeal from a preliminary injunction barring Apotex from selling its proposed Neulasta biosimilar for 180 days after FDA approval. Briefing will be complete on February 12, 2016, and the Federal Circuit agreed to place the case on the oral argument calendar soon thereafter. Apotex had asked for a more expedited schedule but was not able to provide any specific evidence of when its proposed biosimilar product will be approved.
After the FDA approved the first U.S. biosimilar, Sandoz’s Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), earlier this year, many predicted that the floodgates would open for biosimilar products. That has not been the case. No other U.S. biosimilar product has been approved. And, as FDA’s recent rejection of Hospira’s EPO biosimilar application suggests, Zarxio’s approval may ultimately provide little guidance for more complex products.
In Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), a Federal Circuit panel held that Sequenom Inc.’s noninvasive prenatal diagnosis patent claims patent ineligible subject matter under the two-step test of Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). Sequenom petitioned the court for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel failed to consider the claimed method as a whole and that its analysis was therefore contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Sequenom’s petition received strong support from amici from numerous organizations, companies and academic groups. There were 12 amicus briefs in total, raising a variety of additional arguments in support of en banc review. On September 3, 2015, the court invited appellees to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc.
Today, in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 2015-1499 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2015), an historic case of first impression, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit interpreted the BPCIA. The court (per Judges Lourie and Chen) held that a biosimilar applicant can opt out of the BPCIA’s patent dance provisions by withholding its aBLA and manufacturing information, and that the only consequence of doing so is being subject to a patent infringement action on any patent that could have been listed during the patent dance. The court (per Judges Lourie and Newman) also held that a biosimilar applicant is required to provide a notice of commercial marketing under the BPCIA, and that such a notice can only be provided after the FDA has approved the biosimilar product. In short, both reference product sponsors and biosimilar manufacturers will find good and bad news in today’s decision.
The BPCIA created an abbreviated pathway for FDA approval of biological medicinal products that are “biosimilar” to an already FDA-approved product. The FDA recently approved the first U.S. biosimilar – Sandoz’s biosimilar of Amgen’s Neupogen – and is currently reviewing at least four other proposed biosimilars. Many innovators and biosimilars manufacturers are responding to the changing landscape for biologics by developing “biobetters”: new and improved versions of biologic medicinal products. While biobetters require discovery and an original Biologics License Application (BLA) with a full complement of pre-clinical and clinical data for marketing approval, they also offer many advantages. By offering superior and longer-acting medicine, biobetters provide a competitive advantage over biosimilar products. In addition, unlike biosimilars, they generally would be entitled to patent protection and 12 years of non-patent exclusivity under the BPCIA.
The Federal Circuit recently handed down a long-awaited Section 101 decision, one with potentially far-reaching consequences for biotech diagnostic patents. In Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., No. 14-1139 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit, applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s test for patent eligibility set out in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), invalidated Sequenom’s breakthrough patent on noninvasive prenatal diagnosis through the amplification and detection of paternally inherited cell-free fetal DNA (“cffDNA”) in the blood of pregnant women. According to the court, “even such valuable contributions can fall short of statutory subject matter” under the test set out in Mayo. In addition to its implications for other biotech patents and investment in diagnostics, the Federal Circuit’s decision illustrates the potentially unintended consequences of Mayo and the need for a legislative solution so that breakthrough manmade inventions remain patent-eligible.
Medicare Part B covers drugs prescribed and administered in an outpatient setting (e.g., a doctor’s office or outpatient clinic), including many biologic drugs (given that they are often injectable drugs that must be administered by a health practitioner). In the wake of the recent approval of Sandoz’s Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz), the first FDA-approved biosimilar, the practical impact of Medicare Part B’s reimbursement policy will soon be tested in the marketplace.
On March 25, 2015, FDA denied Amgen’s Citizen Petition asking the FDA to require biosimilar applicants to certify compliance with the information disclosure provisions of the BPCIA before the FDA formally accepts the biosimilar application for review. FDA did not decide whether the disclosure provisions were mandatory, deferring to ongoing litigation on that issue.
Today the FDA announced approval of the first ever biosimilar in the United States, Sandoz’s Zarxio, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neupogen (filgrastim) product. Although Sandoz has cleared FDA obstacles, when Zarxio reaches the market depends on the outcome of Amgen’s lawsuit under the BPCIA.
Although the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act does not affect the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), it calls to mind the first round of Obamacare litigation, in which the BPCIA, while not directly challenged, briefly became collateral damage.