Robert Cerwinski, JD, Partner at Goodwin, discusses the impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling in TC Heartland v Kraft on biosimilar litigation.
Transcript:
Could the SCOTUS ruling in TC Heartland v Kraft have an impact on litigation for biosimilars?
I think it can. The TC Heartland decision applies to patent infringement litigation, generally, and it concerns the patent venue statute. The issue in TC Heartland is: where can a patent infringement suit be brought against particular defendants? Before TC Heartland was decided, the Federal Circuit had taken the position that anywhere that a defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction, either personal jurisdiction because it was the place where the defendant was incorporated, or had his principal place of business, or because there was specific personal jurisdiction, i.e. where the acts of jurisdiction occurred. The Supreme Court took a narrow view of the venue statute, or the venue provision in the patent statute, and said really a suit can only be brought where the patent defendant resides or where the acts of infringement have occurred and the defendant has a regular established place of business. The dispute in TC Heartland was really: what does “reside” mean? The Federal Circuit had taken the position that it’s anywhere the personal jurisdiction lay, and the Supreme Court said it’s just where the defendant is incorporated. So, the upshot of all of this is where particular defendants can be sued is now more limited in the context of patent infringement litigation. Interestingly, the Supreme Court did not weigh in on where foreign defendants can be sued. So, foreign defendants that aren’t really incorporated anywhere in the US—that question remains unanswered. As the reference product sponsors and biosimilar manufacturers jockey over where suits under the BPCIA should be adjudicated, which venues may be more favorable to the biosimilar applicant versus the reference product sponsor, now TC Heartland is going to limit some of those choices.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
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.
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
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.
Rising Biosimilar Adoption for an Italian Payer Will Benefit National Health Care System, Patients
April 9th 2024Data from 2021 and 2022 indicates increasing biosimilar use in an Italian health care company, with potential for full adoption in the future, benefiting both the National Health System and citizens through efficient and sustainable health care policies.
Review Highlights Most Popular European Policies to Boost Biosimilar Uptake
April 3rd 2024Although tender systems are a common strategy to encourage biosimilar utilization across Europe, policies like automatic substitution are rarely utilized, according to a systematic review of European policies and biosimilar uptake.