This week, the district court of Massachusetts granted Celltrion’s motion for a summary judgment of non-infringement of the last patent in question in the long-running Janssen v Celltrion case.
This week, the district court of Massachusetts granted Celltrion’s motion for a summary judgment of non-infringement of the last patent in question in Janssen v Celltrion.
In April 2018, Celltrion asked the court for the summary judgment of non-infringement; Janssen, maker of the reference infliximab, Remicade, claimed that Celltrion infringed on a patent that covers chemically-defined media compositions for the culture of eukaryotic cells.
In support of its motion, Celltrion said that Janssen’s patent is not new, and argued that the court should terminate the case based on ensnarement, or the principle that prior art—or elements of patented information that are already publicly available—restricts the scope of what the alleging party can assert under the doctrine of equivalents, which is 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.
In this week’s ruling, the court said that the ensnarement defense prevents the patent holder form using the doctrine of equivalents to gain coverage that it would not otherwise be able to obtain by claiming literal infringement. “In essence,” reads the decision, “the court finds that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the hypothetical claims that Janssen relies upon to avoid ensnarement would have been patentable because they were obvious rather than inventive,” and obviousness of an invention is a statutory bar to its patentability.
The decision brings to a close a long-running case that involved not only the patent covering media compositions, but one that covered the infliximab antibody itself. That patent was invalidated by the district court of Massachusetts in September 2016 for double patenting.
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).
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.
Eye on Pharma: Adalimumab Updates; New Eylea Biosimilar Lawsuit; Canada Gains Stelara Biosimilar
November 22nd 2023Several companies make moves to further their adalimumab biosimilars, Regeneron sues Celltrion over biosimilar for Eylea (aflibercept), and Health Canada grants marketing authorization for biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab).