In ongoing litigation over Celltrion and Pfizer’s infliximab biosimilar, Inflectra, a Massachusetts district court has granted Celltrion’s motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.
In ongoing litigation over Celltrion and Pfizer’s infliximab biosimilar, Inflectra, a Massachusetts district court has granted Celltrion’s motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.
Janssen, maker of the reference infliximab, Remicade, has claimed that the biosimilar developer infringed on a patent, which covers chemically defined media compositions for the culture of eukaryotic cells, in producing Inflectra.
In support of its motion, Celltrion said that Janssen’s patent is not new and that the court should terminate the case based on ensnarement, or the principle that prior art (elements of patented information that are already publicly available) restricts the scope of what the alleging party can assert under the doctrine of equivalents (a legal rule holding that, while a product may not literally infringe on a patented invention, the product may have elements that are equivalent to those described in a patent).
According to Celltrion, if Janssen wants to claim that Celltrion infringed on Janssen’s patent through the doctrine of equivalents, Janssen should have the burden of proving that the scope of equivalency does not encompass any prior art related to the patent.
“There is every reason for the Court to consider ensnarement on a motion for summary judgment” in this case, according to the motion, especially given the fact that GlaxoSmithKline has already disclosed the same ingredients, at concentrations that overlap heavily with Janssen’s patented ingredients and concentrations, elsewhere. These overlapping ranges establish a case for the obviousness of Janssen’s invention, says Celltrion.
The motion proposes a deadline of May 10, 2018, for Janssen to file its opposition, after which Celltrion would file its reply brief by May 28, 2018.
In October of 2017, the court denied Celltrion’s motion to dismiss this case for lack of standing.
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.
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.
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.