Legal challenges to a recent jury verdict in Amgen v Hospira continue, with both parties in the case filing briefs asking for new trials over aspects of the ruling.
Legal challenges to a recent jury verdict in Amgen v Hospira continue, with both parties in the case filing briefs asking for new trials over aspects of the ruling.
Last month, a federal jury found that Hospira had infringed on Amgen’s US Patent Number 5,856,298 (the ‘298 patent), which covers erythropoietin, and ordered the biosimilar developer to pay Amgen, the maker of the reference epoetin alfa (Epogen), $70 million. Hospira had unsuccessfully argued during the trial that its development of a biosimilar product was protected under safe harbor.
In a motion filed this week, Hospira asked the court for a judgment that the manufacture of its batches of a biosimilar product are protected by safe harbor provisions, that Hospira did not infringe on the ‘298 patent (which is states is invalid), and that damages owed to Amgen must not exceed $1.5 million per batch of the drug (if those batches are then sold). In the alternative to such a finding, Hospira asked for a new trial in the case.
Amgen, too, filed a brief in response to the verdict, also asking for a new trial. The jury in Amgen v Hospira found that Hospira had not infringed on US Patent 5,756,349 patent (the ‘349 patent). Amgen claims that “no reasonable jury could have concluded that Hospira did not infringe” on its patent, which is directed toward cells that are capable of producing “large, specified amounts” of erythropoietin (EPO), and that Hospira’s documents that it submitted to the FDA—and presented to the court witness testimony during the trial—establish that its cells fell within the limitations set out in its ‘349 patent. “The jury was not free to disregard the only evidence presented at trial about the EPO production rate of Hospira’s cells,” according to Amgen’s brief.
Finally, Amgen took issue with Hospira’s closing arguments that appropriate data had not proven infringement on the ‘349 patent, saying that the argument had not had supporting testimony during the trial. Amgen seeks a new trial that will specifically address infringement of the ‘349 patent.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
HHS Praises Biosimilars Savings but Opportunities to Reduce Part B Spending Remain
November 28th 2023Although biosimilars have already generated savings for Medicare Part B programs and beneficiaries, opportunities for substantial reductions in spending remain, according to a report from the HHS.
How Community Oncologists Can Break Down Biosimilar Adoption Barriers
March 19th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Mark Guyot, senior director of unity provider engagement at McKesson, gives an overview of McKesson’s real-world analysis of community oncology practices and their use of biosimilars and offers advice on overcoming adoption barriers and expanding education efforts.
Eye on Pharma: Denosumab Biosimilar Data; COA Forms New Committee; IGBA and WHO Collaborate
November 8th 2023Samsung Bioepis releases data for its denosumab biosimilar candidate; the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) forms the Drug Policy and Regulation Committee; the International Generic and Biosimilar Association (IGBA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) collaborate on a new initiative.