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.
On February 5, 2021, the FDA approved Juno Therapeutics, Inc.’s Breyanzi® (lisocabtagene maraleucel) for “treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma.”
The last two years saw the launch of several biosimilars. Looking ahead to 2021, several others may be on the horizon. In 2019-2020, the FDA approved thirteen biosimilars directed to seven reference products. Eight of the approved biosimilars have launched, while five are either embroiled in litigation or awaiting agreed-upon launch dates.
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.
On October 2, 2020, India and South Africa urged the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Council to temporarily waive the obligation of member states under the TRIPS Agreement to protect intellectual property rights for technologies related to the “prevention, containment or treatment” of COVID-19. Kenya, Eswatini, Pakistan, Mozambique, and Bolivia co-sponsor the proposal.
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."
FDA has published new draft guidance for industry titled “Biosimilarity and Interchangeability: Additional Draft Q&As on Biosimilar Development and the BPCI Act.”
The draft guidance supplements two prior documents concerning biosimilar interchangeability published in December 2018. This new guidance, in particular, has some useful information for prospective applicants who seek licensure of an “interchangeable” biosimilar product.
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”).
On Tuesday, November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in California v. Texas, the latest in a long series of challenges to the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) brought by Republican Attorneys General and the Trump Administration. The central issue in California v. Texas is whether the ACA’s individual mandate remains constitutional now that it is no longer backed up by a tax penalty. However, the fate of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) also hinges on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case.
On October 6, FDA issued updated guidance for industry concerning “Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19,” updating the previous guidance issued in June. The updated guidance, which is being “implemented immediately” and “without prior public comment,” is intended “to provide sponsors of requests for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID-19 vaccines with recommendations regarding the data and information needed to support the issuance of an EUA . . . for an investigational vaccine to prevent COVID-19 for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency."
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has announced that it will defer application fees for certain inventions relating to the fight against COVID-19. In its September 16 announcement, the PTO acknowledged its role in "dissemination of important scientific information to the public to promote further innovation" and recognized that this "information flow is now more important than ever in view of the urgent challenges posted by the COVID-19 outbreak." As such, the PTO's new program will allow these applicants to defer payment of COVID-related provisional application filing fees until the filing of a corresponding, non-provisional application.
September 17, 2020 Update: The Trump administration is currently considering accelerating the approval of an experimental Covid-19 vaccine being developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca. In line with FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development and licensure of Covid-19 vaccines, it appears that the administration is considering granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the vaccine. However, Michael Caputo, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which includes FDA, has dismissed the idea that an EUA for the vaccine would issue before November 2020. Phase 3 clinical trials for the vaccine were paused earlier this month after a participant became seriously ill, but have since resumed in the United Kingdom. The vaccine is currently one of three in Phase 3 clinical trials. See below for more information on EUA and FDA’s other tools for expediting the review and approval of promising Covid-19 biologic treatments or vaccines.
The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued its Development and Licensure of Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19: Guidance for Industry on June 30, 2020. This nonbinding guidance is intended to remain in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Earlier this month, in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld two patents covering Enbrel’s active protein and a process used to manufacture the drug, effectively blocking Sandoz’s Enbrel® biosimilar Erelzi from the U.S. market until 2029 and providing a major victory for Amgen.[1] Enbrel is the brand name for the molecule etanercept, which is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and several other inflammatory conditions. A blockbuster drug, last year Enbrel generated over $5.2 billion in sales for Amgen, representing 22% of the company’s revenue.
Last month, Judge Manish Shah of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed an antitrust complaint brought by indirect purchasers of AbbVie’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug, Humira®. The suit alleged antitrust violations under a novel “patent thicket” theory, citing § 2 of the Sherman Act, and “pay-for-delay” and “market allocation” theories under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Mem. Op. and Order (Dkt. 170), In Re: Humira (Adalimumab)Antitrust Litigation, No. 19-cv-1873 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2020).
At the end of 2017, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for biosimilar products were on the rise. This was followed by a dip in the number of new filings in FY 2018 and the first half of 2019. Through Q1 2020, this downward trend has continued. Specifically, there has been one new biosimilar IPR filing in the nine-month period from the beginning of Q3 2019 through the end of Q1 2020, leading to a total of 102 total biosimilar patent IPRs. See Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC et al. v. Amgen, Inc. et al., IPR2020-00314 (December 20, 2019).
This week, Samsung Bioepis announced the U.S. launch of Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb), a biosimilar of Genentech’s Herceptin (trasuzumab). Ontruzant® will be marketed and distributed in the U.S. by Merck. This launch represents Samsung Bioepis’s first oncology biosimilar in the U.S. market.
Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued a final rule to amend its regulation that defines the term “biological product” in line with the definition set by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), as amended by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, enacted on December 20, 2019 (“FCA Act”).
Recently, in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the limits of the Safe Harbor defense in cases involving patented manufacturing methods.
In a case brought in the District of Delaware, Amgen alleged that Hospira infringed several patent claims over methods of manufacturing erythropoietin (EPO), a biologic drug used to treat anemia. Following a trial, a jury issued a $70 million verdict for Amgen, which was based in part on the jury’s conclusion that fourteen batches of drug substance for Hospira’s EPO biosimilar product were not covered by the Safe Harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). After the district court denied Hospira’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or alternatively for a new trial, Hospira appealed on a number of issues, including the jury instructions and jury findings on its Safe Harbor defense.
Last week, Mylan and Biocon announced the U.S. launch of Ogivri™ (trasuzumab-dkst), a biosimilar to Herceptin® (trasuzumab). Genentech’s Herceptin, which was first approved in 1998, is a monoclonal antibody used to treat breast cancer and metastatic stomach cancer.
As 2019 draws to a close, a handful of actions regarding biologics are pending in the federal courts. The current cases are listed below, in order from most-recently-filed to oldest:
Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit declined to further extend the patent term of an antibody patent held by the Mayo Foundation. In Mayo Foundation v. Iancu, the court held that the time spent on a request for continued examination (“RCE”) following a declaration of interference did not count toward the three-year application pendency period for purposes of patent term extension. As discussed below, the Mayo decision could have implications for the terms of biologics patents issued following a request for continued examination.
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.
In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Supreme Court suggested that whether inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) apply to pre-AIA patents is an open constitutional question. But following the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Celgene Corp. v. Peter, it appears that retroactive IPRs are here to stay, at least for now.
On July 23, 2019, Amgen, maker of the cancer treatment drug Neupogen (filgrastim), filed patent infringement claims in the Southern District of California against Tanvex Biopharma over Tanvex’s proposed filgrastim biosimilar. See Amgen Inc. v. Tanvex BioPharma USA, Inc., 3:19-cv-01374-BEN-MSB. Amgen asserts a patent that claims methods of refolding recombinant proteins used in the manufacture of Neupogen.
Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc., No. 2018-1993, Slip op. at 6 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2019) stems from a Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act action brought by Amgen against Coherus seeking FDA approval to market a biosimilar version of Amgen’s pegfilgrastim product Neulasta.
At the end of 2017, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for biosimilar products were on the rise. 2018 and the first half of 2019, however, have seen a dip in the number of new filings. And looking back at biosimilar IPRs that have been decided, results have been mixed. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution in about half (47%) of its institution decisions on petitions challenging biologics-related patents. For those petitions actually reaching a Final Written Decision, the patentability of at least one claim has been upheld in just over half (53%) of the Board’s decisions. Notwithstanding the mixed results for petitioners and the recent dip in new filings discussed here, IPR remains a key battlefield for biologic innovators and biosimilar makers.
In Enzo Life Sciences v. Roche Molecular Systems, No. 2017-2498, 2017-2499, 2017-2545, 2017-2546, Slip op. (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement of Enzo’s two patents relating to non-radioactive labeling of polynucleotides. The decision highlights non-enablement issues that may arise with respect to broad functional claims in an unpredictable field.
On April 17, 2019, several lawmakers from the Senate and House of Representatives released a bipartisan, bicameral framework for statutory reform of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The framework was released about two months after the revival of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. For the past several years, innovators, the Patent Office, and even judges on the Federal Circuit have raised concerns that Section 101 has become a runaway law for invalidating patents that reflect genuine advances in science and technology. The revival of the Senate subcommittee and the release of this framework indicate that Capitol Hill has heard, and is moving towards a response to, these concerns.
On February 6, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued its latest opinion on patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, No. 2017-2508, slip. Op. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2019). Judge Lourie wrote for the majority in this split decision, expressing some regret but affirming an order invalidating a diagnostic patent involving proteins. Judge Newman dissented, voicing a concern that § 101 jurisprudence has become counterproductive to the goals of patent law. Though unsurprising, the decision further narrows an already shrinking space for patents to diagnostic methods. It is unclear from this decision what diagnostic methods, if any, are safe from future § 101 challenges.
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited opinion in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 2017-1694, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2019). While many had hoped the decision would provide clarity on whether a biosimilar maker who has not yet filed an aBLA has standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding an innovator patent, the Federal Circuit instead dismissed the appeal for lack of standing and mootness based on post-appeal developments making it clear that Momenta had abandoned its efforts to develop the biosimilar in question. Nevertheless, Momenta is important in that it illustrates the continued risk to biosimilar makers of unappealable IPR decisions when they bring IPRs years before filing an aBLA.
On January 7, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published new guidance for patent examiners intended to address concerns expressed by Federal Circuit judges, industry stakeholders, and others about the perceived lack of predictability and clarity in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). The guidance, which is intended for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility, “revises the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas).” Id. This new guidance represents an attempt by the USPTO to address “the legal uncertainty surrounding Section 101,” recognizing that “[m]any stakeholders, judges, inventors, and practitioners across the spectrum have argued that something needs to be done to increase clarity and consistency in how Section 101 is currently applied.” Id.
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.
Two cases decided by the Federal Circuit in 2018, Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, en banc rehearing denied, 890 F.3d 1354 and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, en banc rehearing denied, 890 F.3d 1369, address what qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and how courts should resolve that question. These cases expose divisions within the court on § 101 issues, however, and leave uncertainty in their wake. Many stakeholders, including judges, are therefore calling for guidance from the Supreme Court as to how to resolve such issues or seeking the aid of Congress.
Earlier this month, the President signed into law the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act (Public Law 115-263). The Act mainly focuses on eliminating so-called “gag clauses” that prevent pharmacists from telling patients when paying for a drug out of pocket is cheaper than paying through insurance. In addition, the Act amends the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) to require branded drug companies and biosimilar applicants to disclose settlement agreements relating to the “manufacture, marketing, or sale” of biosimilar products to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for evaluation under the antitrust laws. The new legislation brings biosimilar litigation in line with ANDA litigation, for which the same disclosure requirements were already in place.
In Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 17-1694 (Fed. Cir. argued Dec. 5, 2017), BMS challenges Momenta’s standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding the validity of BMS’s patent relating to a formulation of Orencia® (abatacept) in an IPR brought by Momenta before having filed a biosimilar marketing application. The Federal Circuit is expected to decide whether a petitioner must have filed a marketing application in order to have Article III standing to appeal from an unfavorable PTAB decision. As months have passed without a decision, Momenta and BMS have both used the time to further press their case.
Earlier this month, AbbVie filed suit against Sandoz’s proposed biosimilar to AbbVie’s HUMIRA® (adalimumab). Invoking the Biosimilar Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), AbbVie asserts two patents protecting Humira, a fraction of the 84 patents AbbVie wished to litigate. Taking full advantage of the pre-litigation “patent dance,” Sandoz limited the number of patents-in-suit to just two. As this case illustrates, following the patent dance affords biosimilar makers considerable control and power over the scope of biosimilar lawsuits.
The Supreme Court of the US handed patent owners a significant victory in WesternGeco v ION by overturning the Federal Circuit’s bright-line rule prohibiting recovery of lost profits accrued overseas as a result of domestic patent infringement under § 271(f)(2) of the Patent Act.§ 271(f)(2) prohibits supplying components of a patented invention from the US with the intent that they be combined abroad.
To continue reading Irena Royzman and Jordan Engelhardt's article from Intellectual Property Magazine, please click here.
On July 20, 2018, FDA approved Pfizer’s biosimilar of Amgen’s Neupogen® (filgrastim). Pfizer’s product, Nivestym™, is the second biosimilar of Neupogen to be approved after Sandoz’s Zarxio®, the first approved biosimilar in the United States. Pfizer’s Nivestym gained approval for all eligible Neupogen indications.
Allergan’s attempt to shield its Restasis patents from inter partes review by assigning the patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe was rejected last week by a unanimous Federal Circuit panel. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s February 2018 decision holding that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar IPRs.
On Friday, June 22, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, 585 U.S. ___, Slip. Op. No. 16-1011 (June 22, 2018), reversing the Federal Circuit and holding that WesternGeco’s award for lost foreign profits was a permissible application of the damages provision of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 284.[1] Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for a seven-justice majority while Justice Gorsuch wrote a dissent joined by Justice Breyer.
Analytical studies to demonstrate that a biosimilar is highly similar to its reference product are central to the biosimilar development and approval process. For this reason, there have been calls from industry for more guidance from FDA on its expectations for evaluating and demonstrating analytical similarity.
As biosimilar litigation between Amgen, the maker of Enbrel® (etanercept), and Sandoz, the maker of biosimilar ErelziTM (etanercept-szzs) heads toward trial before Judge Claire Cecchi in the District of New Jersey, Sandoz is seeking to stave off Amgen’s infringement claims for three of the patents in suit by pointing to its recent amendment to the Erelzi label, which “carves out” certain treatment indications listed on the Enbrel reference label and, Sandoz argues, moots any claim that Erelzi infringes Amgen’s patents covering the use of etanercept to treat those conditions.
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions address when a party has standing to challenge the validity of a patent. Though the cases arose in different contexts, they both center on the question of what it means for a party to be facing an imminent and cognizable injury. In Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc., 17-1487, the Federal Circuit upheld a party’s standing to appeal from a post-grant review where it was at risk of an infringement suit. In AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al., 16-2475,[1] however, the court reached the opposite conclusion and determined that the immediacy requirement to bring a declaratory judgment action was not met for a party that had an interest in purchasing generic drugs, but did not itself produce them.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last month handed manufacturers and wholesalers of off-patent drugs a victory by ruling that Maryland’s anti-price gouging act violates the U.S. Constitution’s dormant commerce clause. The legislation, like many others, was enacted in the wake of the Martin Shkreli case, where the former Turing Pharmaceutical CEO raised the price of a vital and old prescription drug by 5,000 percent. Although the Circuit sympathized with consumers affected by this type of conduct, it held, in a majority opinion written by Judge Stephanie Thacker, that Maryland overstepped its constitutional limits in seeking to compel manufacturers of off-patent or generic drugs to act in accordance with Maryland law outside of Maryland.
Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR), as expected by most observers. However, it was the Court’s decision in a second IPR-related case that will have an immediate impact on patent practitioners. In SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the PTO’s practice of “partial review”—instituting an IPR on some but not all claims challenged in a petition for IPR—is inconsistent with the text of the AIA. The decision will lead to immediate consequences, not the least of which is a major increase in the number of claims tried before the PTAB.
In a highly anticipated ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings. Justice Thomas, writing for the seven-member majority in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could reconsider and cancel patent claims through inter partes review without violating Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
On Monday, April 16, 2018, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in WesternGeco LLC, v. ION Geophysical Corporation, No. 16-1011, a case with broad implications for patent holders that sell products abroad. The case addresses whether lost profits accrued outside of the United States can be recovered for patent infringement occurring domestically. In the decision below, 791 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit adopted a per se bar to recovery of such foreign damages, even when domestic patent infringement is established and proximately caused. Although WesternGeco involves infringement under 35 U.S.C.§ 271(f) – which prohibits the supply of components of a patented invention in the U.S. with the intent that they be combined abroad – in its argument in support of the petitioner, the Solicitor General framed the question more broadly as whether lost profits accrued outside of the United States can be recovered for any domestic act of patent infringement under § 271.[1] Four key takeaways from the oral argument are discussed below.
Biosimilar developers have been aggressive in filing petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs) of biologics patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), many of them preceding the filing of a marketing application. Such early IPRs are attractive to biosimilar makers, because they provide a chance to challenge innovator patents years before the biosimilar maker files a marketing application with FDA. Since a petitioner need not have Article III case-or-controversy standing to bring an IPR, the remoteness and uncertainty of future infringement in such circumstances does not preclude these early IPRs. Under settled precedent, however, a biosimilar maker must have Article III standing to seek a Federal Circuit appeal if the PTAB issues a final decision upholding the challenged patent. A decision expected from the Federal Circuit this quarter in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 17-1694 (Fed. Cir. argued Dec. 5, 2017) will address how and when a biosimilar maker can establish that standing.
On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) authorized, with special controls, the first direct-to-consumer test to detect the presence of genetic mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (“BRCA genes”). The test, offered by the personal genomics company 23andMe, analyzes DNA from a consumer’s self-collected saliva sample for three mutations in the BRCA genes. Mutations in the BRCA genes are associated with an increased risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer in women, and breast and prostate cancer in men. However, the test only detects a small fraction of the more than 1,000 known mutations in the BRCA genes. The three mutations that the test does identify are most prevalent in people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent and are rarely present in individuals of other ethnic groups.
