News of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the case of Sandoz v Amgen broke during the Monday session of the 8th Annual Summit on Biosimilars, a meeting of legal and pharmaceutical industry professionals convened in New York City. In a previously scheduled—and swiftly updated—discussion of the case, a panel of attorneys grappled with the ruling and its implications for the industry.
News of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the case of Sandoz v Amgen broke during the Monday session of the 8th Annual Summit on Biosimilars, a meeting of legal and pharmaceutical industry professionals convened in New York City. In a previously scheduled—and swiftly updated—discussion of the case, a panel of attorneys grappled with the ruling and its implications for the industry.
Hans Sauer, Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property at BIO, began by reminding attendees of the reasons that the so-called “patent dance” was so contentious to begin with; negotiations over the legal framework concerning biosimilars began roughly a decade ago, and at that time, Sauer said, the most important question on legislators’ minds was the 12-year period of data exclusivity for biologics. Clarifying the requirements of the patent dance was not a high priority in healthcare reform at the time. When the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) was merged with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), its provisions surrounding the patent dance had not yet been refined or “cleaned up in the House.” In Sauer’s view, even when the BPCIA had been newly signed into law as part of the ACA, its language was generally understood to be ambiguous.
In sorting through the implications of the Sandoz v Amgen ruling, Irena Royzman, PhD, partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, described the verdict from an innovator’s point of view. Royzman explained that the Court’s ruling that biosimilar manufacturers need not engage in an exchange of information with innovators means that innovators will lack an informed path to litigation. These companies will no longer know whom to sue, which patents have been infringed upon, or even which patents to assert in protection of their products. Innovators will have to assert their full patent portfolios “blind,” Royzman said.
Looking ahead to the case of Amgen v Hospira, Royzman said its outcome may well be determined by this week’s ruling. In this case, Royzman explained, Hospira did not provide to Amgen the manufacturing information for its biosimilar product. In response, Amgen sued, though the company did not know whether a number of its patents had been infringed upon. When Amgen asked the court for discovery (a pre-trial procedure in which each party involved in a suit can obtain evidence from the other party), the judge in the case denied its request. As the BPCIA does not provide an independent basis for discovery, Amgen has not yet obtained—and may never obtain—evidence from Hospira.
Royzman suggested that the Supreme Court’s ruling provided a lesson for the US Congress: if legislators intend for remedies other than those provided under legislation to be available to parties whose patents have been infringed upon, then they must say so explicitly.
In discussing the ruling from the biosimilar manufacturer’s viewpoint, W. Blake Coblentz, co-chair of Hatch-Waxman & Biologics Litigation at Cozen O’Connor, suggested that the court’s decision will not signal a reduction in litigation. If a biosimilar applicant chooses to follow the information exchange pathway, Coblentz said, the end result of the process will still be litigation. If the applicant opts out of the information exchange, then the innovator will be free to sue the applicant immediately.
Nor does the ruling mean that all biosimilar manufacturers will forego the BPCIA pathway to litigation. If biosimilar applicants choose not to participate in the information exchange process, innovators would benefit. According to Coblentz, when immediate suits result from applicants’ opting out of the exchange of information under the BPCIA pathway, innovators will control the timing and the scope of litigation, disadvantaging biosimilar applicants. When applicants do engage in the information exchange, they benefit from temporary safe harbor from litigation, and also force innovators to identify their patents or forfeit the ability to sue for infringement later.
Many in the room, both on the panel and in the audience, suggested that the FDA should assist the industry and the courts in clarifying the remedies that an innovator might seek if it believes its patents have been infringed upon. One comment from the floor even suggested that the FDA could choose not to process a biologics license application on the basis of an applicant’s violation of law, though a number of others in the room suggested that the FDA has been unresponsive to such suggestions in the past.
Yet, the court itself signaled a need for the FDA to take up the matter; as Justice Breyer wrote in his concurring opinion, “if that agency (FDA), after greater experience administering this statute, determines that a different interpretation would better serve the statute’s objectives, it may well have authority to depart from, or to modify, today’s interpretation.”
It remains to be seen whether fresh leadership in the FDA—leadership that one attorney called “novel” in terms of FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb’s willingness to address such questions as drug pricing—might result in new precedents for the agency’s involvement in resolving these lingering questions.
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.
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.
Alvotech’s Stelara Biosimilar, Selarsdi, Receives FDA Approval
April 16th 2024Alvotech’s Selarsdi (ustekinumab-aekn), a biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab), gained FDA approval, making it the second ustekinumab biosimilar and second for the company to be given the green light for the American market.
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.
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.
Global Biosimilar Market Projected to Reach $1.3 Trillion by 2032
April 11th 2024The global biosimilar market is projected to surge from $25.1 billion in 2022 to approximately $1.3 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.6%, driven mainly by the increasing prevalence of cancer and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, as outlined in a report by Towards Healthcare.