Amgen has been sued by Genentech, a Roche company, for withholding information on its biosimilar to Genentech’s bevacizumab (Avastin), thereby creating a barrier for filing a potential patent infringement lawsuit.
In its complaint, Genentech states that Amgen has violated the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) as it develops the biosimilar to bevacizumab. Genentech expected access to Amgen’s manufacturing information of the biosimilar to determine whether the manufacture or sale of the product would infringe on Genentech’s patents. The company also wants sufficient time for a legal intervention, if need be, before the biosimilar is launched in the market.
The lawsuit, filed in a US District Court in Delaware, claims that Amgen is refusing to share relevant “confidential information” with Genentech’s consultants, beyond the Abbreviated Biologics License Application (aBLA), which would allow an infringement analysis. Per the BPCIA statute, Genentech expected to have not just the copy of the aBLA for review, but additional information that describes the steps used to manufacture the biosimilar product—in this case, bevacizumab—within 20 days of filing the aBLA on January 4, 2017. This would allow Genentech to provide Amgen with a list of patents within 2 months of receiving information from the company.
The complaint also accuses Amgen of improperly withholding consent for 4 experts to review their aBLA, which “violates subsection (l)(1)(C) of the BPCIA.”
Genentech would like its 60-day window for providing its list of patents to Amgen to begin only after Amgen provides all the required information. The company also seeks to prevent marketing of Amgen’s biosimilar till it meets all obligations per the BPCIA.
Amgen has witnessed this “patent dance” before, with one of its own products, epoetin alfa (Epogen). Amgen had then sued the biosimilar manufacturer, Hospira, for noncompliance with the BPCIA.
The competition for the high stakes involved with this multi-billion dollar industry has resulted in companies tapping into loopholes left by the fairly new rules around biosimilars. Amgen is already involved in a case with Sandoz that will decide whether a biosimilar applicant can completely opt out of the BPCIA information exchanges, and if so, what information would the originator company end up with. Another argument is over the 6-month obligatory waiting period for biosimilar manufacturers after they have informed the originator about its biosimilar product.
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.
BioRationality: MHRA's Procedure Enables Automatic Registration of Biosimilars Approved Elsewhere
March 18th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, explains how the new international recognition procedure under the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) could expand biosimilar access within the United Kingdom, in his latest column.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Coherus Biosciences Cites Biosimilars as Main Drivers of 2023 Revenue Growth
March 14th 2024In its earnings report for the fourth quarter and full year of 2023, Coherus Biosciences detailed its rising revenue growth, which it partly attributed to increased sales for its pegfilgrastim and ranibizumab biosimilars.
Filgrastim Biosimilars in Europe: 15 Years of Real-World Evidence for Zarxio
March 13th 2024A review looking back at the last 15 years of experience with the first filgrastim biosimilar (Zarxio) provides a detailed overview on how filgrastim biosimilars came to be and the evidence behind why oncologists have come to accept them as standard practice.