Ha Kung Wong, JD, partner at Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper and Scinto, addresses recent changes to inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings with respect to biologic drugs.
Transcript:
What have some of the recent changes to inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs) meant for biologic patent holders and biosimilar challengers?
According to PTAB statistics—and PTAB is the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—bio and pharma and chemical patent IPRs have continued to file preliminary responses at similar rates as they were prior to the rule change allowing new testimonial evidence to be submitted, with about 85% of patent owners choosing to submit a preliminary response.
Interestingly, bio/pharma and chemical patent owners have submitted new testimonial evidence at higher rates than other technologies, with 48% of bio/pharma IPRs having new testimonial evidence submitted with the preliminary response, and 58% for chemical patent IPRs.
This is in comparison to about 35%-40% of preliminary responses including new testimonial evidence for other technology types. We at Fitzpatrick are planning on doing an analysis specifically for biologic drug patents to see if these statistics differ from the broader bio/pharma and chemical industry and hope to report on that analysis soon.
Overall, there may be a slight impact of allowing new testimonial evidence as according to the PTAB itself, institution rates have declined in the last 2 years from 67% in the fiscal year 2016 to 63% in fiscal year 2017, and 60% in fiscal year 2018 so far.
It’s unclear if these declining institution rates are in any way impacted by the allowance of testimonial evidence at the patent owner preliminary response stage, but it certainly could have contributed. The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that the impact of such testimonial evidence is highly, highly fact-specific, so it really is difficult to make general statements about it.
I think a more interesting question is the potential effect of the proposed Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018 on IPRs and PGRs in the pharma space. It’s pretty significant. If enacted, this would essentially require an [Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA] or biosimilar applicant to choose between using the ANDA/biosimilar approval pathway or challenging a patent in an IPR or PGR proceeding.
This would likely virtually eliminate the use of IPRs and PGRs in the biologic and small-molecule drug space. The benefits of quicker resolution of the dispute via IPR would likely be outweighed by losing the opportunity to challenge many patents under section 101 or 112—so that’s utility, enablement, indefiniteness—as these are not available in IPRs.
With regard to PGRs, these challenges are available, but they’re only available for 9 months after patents are granted, so it’s less likely to coincide with a Hatch-Waxman litigation. So far, we’ve seen very few PGRs in the biologics context, so the availability of section 101 or 112 challenges in PGRs do not yet appear to be much of an incentive to go down this pathway. But we’re seeing PGRs in the biologics space really pick up, though, in the last couple of months, and in fact I’ve been involved with 5 of them in just the last 4 months, so it’ll be interesting to see how this sorts out in the future.
Eye on Pharma: Canadian Aflibercept Settlement; Sandoz Acquires Cimerli; Payer Chooses Cyltezo
March 6th 2024Biocon Biologics settled with the maker of Eylea (aflibercept), announcing a launch date for its biosimilar competitor in Canada; Sandoz has officially acquired Cimerli, a ranibizumab biosimilar; AARP Medicare Rx from United Healthcare has added Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) and removed the originator (Humira) from its formulary.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Patient With MS Sues J&J Over ERISA Violation
February 14th 2024After a patient with multiple sclerosis (MS) was forced to pay exorbitant out-of-pocket costs for a brand name medication when she could’ve gotten a generic for way less, the patient filed a class action complaint against her employer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
Q&A With Dr Chelsee Jensen: Navigating FDA Approvals, Challenges in the Biosimilar Landscape
January 14th 2024Chelsee Jensen, PharmD, BCPS, senior pharmacy specialist and pharmaceutical formulary manager at Mayo Clinic, reacts to the biggest FDA approvals of 2023 and how she sees the adalimumab, natalizumab, and tocilizumab spaces playing out.
Eye on Pharma: Fresh Biosimilar Lawsuits; FDA to Review Ustekinumab, Denosumab Biosimilars
January 11th 2024As Regeneron gears up for a legal battle with biosimilar competitors for its reference aflibercept, CareFirst files a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson for restricting biosimilar ustekinumab competition; Celltrion and Accord BioPharma file with the FDA to approve their respective biosimilar candidates.