Dance or Not, Biosimilar Applicants Must Provide 180-Day Notice of Commercial Marketing Under the BPCIA

Jul 8, 2016

Reading Time : 4 min

Enacted in 2009, the BPCIA establishes a process by which a biosimilar applicant can obtain regulatory approval for a biological product that is sufficiently similar to a previously approved reference product based on information provided to the FDA by the reference product sponsor. 42 U.S.C. § 262(k). In addition to providing a mechanism for abbreviated regulatory approval of biosimilars, the BPCIA also created a framework for the resolution of patent disputes that might arise between a biosimilar applicant and a reference product sponsor. 42 U.S.C. § 262(l). Pursuant to § 262(l), once a biosimilar applicant receives notice from the FDA that its application has been accepted, a series of exchanges, frequently referred to as the “patent dance,” are triggered between the applicant, here Apotex, and the reference product sponsor, here Amgen. First, the biosimilar applicant is to provide its application and manufacturing information to the reference product sponsor. Id. at § 262(l)(2)(A). Then the reference product sponsor is to provide a list of patents it could reasonably assert against the biosimilar applicant and identify any such patents it is willing to license. Id. at § 262(l)(3)(A). Next, the biosimilar applicant is to provide a substantive response addressing any defenses it may assert against the reference product sponsor’s patents, stating whether any patents will expire before it intends to commercially market its product, and optionally identifying any additional patents it believes may be asserted against its product. Id. at § 262(l)(3)(B)(i)-(iii). Shortly thereafter, the reference product sponsor is to provide a substantive reply addressing the biosimilar applicant’s non-infringement, invalidity or unenforceability positions. Id. at § 262(l)(3)(C). The parties then engage in a series of negotiations through which the parties agree on any patents that will be asserted in litigation, and which culminates in litigation filed pursuant to § 262(l)(6)(A).

In addition to providing a procedure for litigation that allows the biosimilar applicant and reference product sponsor to resolve patent disputes during the period of regulatory approval, the BPCIA also provides for a second stage of litigation connected to the first commercial marketing of the biosimilar product. Under § 262(l)(8)(A), a biosimilar applicant is required to provide notice to the reference product sponsor at least 180 days prior to the first commercial marketing of the licensed biosimilar product. At this time, the reference product sponsor has 180 days to seek a preliminary injunction based on any patents that were identified during the patent dance exchanges, but not litigated under § 262(l)(6) and any patents that issued or were exclusively licensed after the reference product sponsor gave its notice of patents under § 262(l)(3)(A). In its Amgen v. Sandoz decision, the Federal Circuit held the 180-day clock cannot start ticking until after the FDA approves the applicant’s biosimilar product. 794 F.3d at 1357-58. In other words, a notice of commercial marketing that is provided prior to FDA-approval has no legal authority.

The issue raised in this case is whether the 180-day notice requirement of § 262(l)(8)(A) is mandatory and enforceable by injunction against a party who participates in the patent dance procedures and subsequent litigation provided for under §§ 262(l)(2) - 262(l)(6). In Amgen v. Sandoz, the Federal Circuit held the notice period under § 262(l)(8)(A) applied to a biosimilar applicant who refused to engage in the patent dance procedures and consequently never provided the reference product sponsor with the notice to launch required under § 262(l)(2)(A). In this case, after Apotex filed an application with the FDA, seeking permission to begin marketing a biosimilar version of Amgen’s FDA-approved Neulasta®, it complied with the requirements of § 262(l)(2)(A). Apotex also provided notice to Amgen that it would begin commercially marketing its biosimilar product following the expiration of two patents at issue and provided defenses as to a third. The parties then engaged in the patent dance, and Amgen subsequently filed suit for patent infringement under § 262(l)(6)(A).

Following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen v. Sandoz, Amgen filed a motion asking the District Court to enforce the 180-day notice provision of § 262(l)(8)(A) by way of a preliminary injunction, which the District Court granted. On appeal, Apotex argued the Amgen v. Sandoz decision was inapplicable to the present case because in that case, Sandoz opted to forego the patent dance. According to Apotex, its notice to launch under § 262(l)(2)(A) should suffice to provide adequate notice of commercial marketing, and as a result, Amgen should not be entitled to the 180-day post-licensure notice period provided for in § 262(l)(8)(A).

In affirming the decision of the District Court to enforce the 180-day notice requirement of § 262(l)(8)(A), the Federal Circuit held that the language of § 262(l)(8)(A) is a mandatory standalone provision that is triggered after FDA approval, that covers all applicants regardless of whether they file a (2)(A) notice, and that is properly enforceable though an injunction. In this way, the BPCIA provides all reference-product sponsors with time to review the final FDA-approved product and determine whether it should seek injunctive relief to prevent commercial marketing of a product while yet-to-be-litigated patents are adjudicated.   

Amgen Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., Case No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.