Zhiqiang Liu Litigation Attorney Patterson Belknap

Zhiqiang Liu, Ph.D., Associate

Biologics Blog

Visit 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.

Q1 2020 Biosimilar IPR Update: Drop in New Filings

Zhiqiang Liu | Jordan M. Engelhardt | Aron Fischer
May 13, 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).

Categories: AIA, Biosimilars, Biotechnology, IPR, PTO Proceedings
Go

Q2 2019 Review: Biosimilar IPRs See a Drop in New Filings and Mixed Results

Zhiqiang Liu | Jordan M. Engelhardt | Aron Fischer
July 24, 2019

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.

Go

Mixed Results as IPR Petitions for Biosimilars Soar

Zhiqiang Liu | Irena Royzman
December 8, 2017

Inter partes review proceedings for biosimilar products are soaring. Biosimilar makers are taking advantage of IPR proceedings to challenge patents protecting some of the world's most important biologic medicines due to the advantages that these proceedings offer: no standing requirement, no presumption of validity, a lower burden of proof and potentially broader claim construction. More than half of the IPR petitions challenging these patents were filed in fiscal 2017. But the results are mixed, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denying a high percentage of the petitions. Many of these patents are ultimately litigated in district court under the U.S. biosimilar statute, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA). 

Categories: Biosimilars, BPCIA, Patent Litigation
Go

Impact of Nautilus on Biotech and Pharmaceutical Patents

Zhiqiang Liu | Eugene M. Gelernter
November 13, 2015

In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” standard for determining whether a patent claim meets the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 2, and that “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” In the ensuing one and a half years, the Federal Circuit and several trial courts have applied the Nautilus standard in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical contexts. We discuss three notable decisions.

Categories: Biotechnology, Patent Litigation
Go

Biosimilar Makers’ IPR Strategy Yields Mixed Results

Zhiqiang Liu | Irena Royzman
August 31, 2015

A number of biosimilar makers have turned  to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to challenge innovator patents prior to submitting their biosimilar applications to FDA.  IPRs have been attractive to biosimilar makers because in addition to offering procedural and substantive advantages for challenging patents they do not require the filing of a biosimilar application.  As a result, they make it possible for biosimilar makers to obtain patent certainty at a time when litigation under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) is premature and, depending on the results of the IPRs, may be avoided entirely.  The first such IPRs, however, are yielding mixed results, leaving potential patent disputes for later BPCIA litigation.  

Categories: Biosimilars, Biotechnology, BPCIA, FDA, Patent Litigation, PTO Proceedings
Go

Biosimilar Makers Turn to IPRs before Litigation under the BPCIA

Zhiqiang Liu | Irena Royzman
May 15, 2015

A number of biosimilar makers have turned to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in order to litigate the validity of patents that cover their proposed products in advance of submitting their regulatory applications to FDA. Since IPRs, unlike district court proceedings, do not require a case or controversy, they allow biosimilar applicants to resolve potential patent disputes long prior to being able to litigate these disputes in district court and to potentially avoid the patent dispute resolution procedures of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) of 2009 entirely.   

Categories: Biosimilars, Biotechnology, BPCIA, FDA, Patent Litigation, PTO Proceedings
Go